CHAPTER 9 FAQ - WHY BAPTISE?
QUESTION 251 : Is baptism really necessary for today; what if I don’t get baptized? [Click Here For The Answer]
QUESTION 252 : I was "baptized/christened" as a baby; why should I be baptized again? [Click Here For The Answer]
QUESTION 253 : Why should a candidate be re-baptized if the first baptism wasn’t in Jesus Name? [Click Here For The Answer]
QUESTION 254 : Is Water baptism for those who are already saved? [Click Here For The Answer]
QUESTION 255 : What's with the Name, anyways? [Click Here For The Answer]
QUESTION 256 : Is it your contention that Matthew misquoted Jesus? [Click Here For The Answer]
QUESTION 257 :
When Christ told his disciple to go and baptize in
the name, he meant to baptize in his authority. Why then
is actually saying the name Jesus or “Father, Son and
Holy Ghost” important?
[Click Here For
The Answer]
QUESTION 258 : Since Jesus' name was actually "YAH-Shu-Uh" instead of "JEE-Zus" does that mean that we really ought to be baptized "In Yashua's Name"? [Click Here For The Answer]
QUESTION 259 : If Baptism is so important, why didn’t the Apostle Paul do it extensively, as he himself confessed (1 Cor 1:14-17)? [Click Here For The Answer]
QUESTION 260 : What sins cannot be remitted by faith in water baptism? [Click Here For The Answer]
QUESTION 261 : Does it matter where we must be baptize; pool, rivers, sea, pond, lake or a built in baptistery? [Click Here For The Answer]
QUESTION 262 : The Roman Catholic Church supports the doctrine of baptism as it pertains to its necessity for salvation, could it be that we are following a wrong catholic doctrine. For instance, in 1993, the Vatican released, “Baptism is necessary for salvation…” [Click Here For The Answer]
QUESTION 263 : If one name is meant (Matt 28:19), it need not be "Jesus"; it could be "Lord," the New Testament equivalent of the name of Yahweh [Yahovah] in the Old Testament. Don’t it? [Click Here For The Answer]
QUESTION 264 : Is the phrase "baptized in the name of Jesus" simply Luke’s way to distinguish Christian baptism from other baptisms of the period, such as John’s baptism (which Luke mentions in Acts 1:5, 22, 10:37, 11:16, 13:24, 18:25, 19:4), Jewish proselyte baptism, and the baptisms of pagan cults (such as Mithraism)? [Click Here For The Answer]
QUESTION 265 : “When one comes to the book of Acts we find the statements baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, or in his name, or Jesus Christ, no two times are exactly alike. All this means is that this was not a formulae. (Acts.2:38-8:16-10:48-19:5-22:16)?” [Click Here For The Answer]
QUESTION 266 : Why was baptism changed to three dips rather than one dip or one baptism and is there anything wrong with doing it? [Click Here For The Answer]
QUESTION 267 : If salvation comes only through being baptized by the sacred name of God, and if the Son is simply a manifestation of God the Father, then baptism would therefore need to be performed in the name of Elohim or Yahweh [Yahovah] (provided in the Old Testament). Wouldn’t it? [Click Here For The Answer]
QUESTION 268 : Is it a must for you to say something over a baptismal candidate, can you not just baptize the person without saying anything? Or, can you baptize yourself? [Click Here For The Answer]
QUESTION 269 : “If Matthew 28:19 and Acts 2:38 both require verbal recitation on the pattern, 'I baptize you in the name of...', then these two verses of the Bible would conflict...Pentecostals deny that Matthew 28:19 requires verbal recitation, but insist that Acts 2:38 does so. I would reverse their conclusion, pleading context.” Wouldn’t you? [Click Here For The Answer]
QUESTION 270 : When Paul asked the Samaritans “Into what then were you baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism” (Acts 19:3), did it mean “that Paul can’t fathom how someone could have heard the baptizer say, ‘in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost’ (Matthew 28:19), yet never even have heard of the Holy Ghost?” [Click Here For The Answer]
QUESTION 271 : Had the Lord “given the apostles a special dispensation to employ a different baptismal formula…understanding that Matthew 28:19 and Acts 2:38 describe two different baptismal formulas?” [Click Here For The Answer]
QUESTION 272 : “If a burglar alarm were to start shrieking as you sauntered by, and a big old cop came lumbering down the street hollering 'Stop in the name of the law!', would you expect him to invoke the [singular!] name once he stopped huffing and puffing? When our cop comes lumbering down the street hollering, 'Stop in the name of the law!', it's less than obvious he doesn't mean by the 'name of the law' a proper name like 'Thurgood' or 'Earl'. How was the idiom, 'in the name of...', used in New Testament times?” (thriceholy.net) [Click Here For The Answer]
QUESTION 273 : “When the Supremes crooned 'Stop in the name of love', it's less than obvious the 'name of love' was intended to place-hold for a proper name, like 'Monica' or 'Bubbles'. Or 'for the sake of...' How was the idiom, 'in the name of...', used in New Testament times?” (thriceholy.net) [Click Here For The Answer]
QUESTION 274 : I’ve seen references where, like Matt 28:19, “name of” (singular) is used for more than one person. Could it be that this verse was talking about three persons we are to baptize in the authority of? For instance, “if you have no cause for wishing this unhappy man to be afflicted with such a grievous calamity; if he has given up to you every-thing but his life, and has reserved to himself nothing of his paternal property, not even as a memorial of his father--then, in the name of the gods, what is the meaning of this cruelty, of this savage and inhuman disposition?" (Cicero For Sextons Roscius of Ameria 146). "But, in the name of the immortal gods! for while I look upon you, O Dolabella, who are most dear to me, it is impossible for me to keep silence respecting the error into which you are both falling..." (Cicero Philippics phil. 1.29). "What then, are we to do? In the name of the immortal gods, can you interpret these facts, and see what is their purport? (Cicero Philippics phil. 1.38). Surprising as it may seem, this is actually correct grammar (thriceholy.net). [Click Here For The Answer]
QUESTION 275 : Is this sentence correct as written?: 'The mis-hit golf ball sailed wildly into the area cordoned off for spectators, striking the head of Mike, of Joe, of Charles, and of Bill.' Yes! '[H]eads' would be correct...only if these named worthies had multiple heads. It's the same with 'the children were told to bring an umbrella to the class outing, in case of rain.' 'Oneness' grammarians would insist this means all the children were expected to huddle beneath one solitary umbrella. Isn't that so? (thriceholy.net) [Click Here For The Answer]
QUESTION 276 : As is discussed more fully below, the phrase ‘the name of...’ may be either self-referential: “And moreover the king’s servants have gone to bless our lord King David, saying, ‘May God make the name of Solomon better than your name, and may He make his throne greater than your throne.’ Then the king bowed himself on the bed” (1 Kings 1:47), or not: “And it shall be that the firstborn son which she bears will succeed to the name of his dead brother, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel” (Deuteronomy 25:6). The “name of his dead brother” isn’t “dead brother,” yet “the name of Solomon” is...nothing other than “Solomon” (thriceholy.net). Isn’t it? [Click Here For The Answer]
QUESTION 277 : One might say I’ve been arguing against a straw man, Matt 28:19, that is, the arguments are void seeing that Matt 28:19 was not in the original scriptures; hence, I would be arguing against nothing and even seems foolish. Also, if you argue that Matt 28:19 means one God as preached by Apostolics, then how is it a straw man? Or, could it be that the Apostolic sentiment was meant by the ones who penned Matt 28:19? [Click Here For The Answer]
QUESTION 278 : You said we are not to baptize in the titles (Matt 28:19), but isn’t Lord and Christ titles as in Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 2:38)? [Click Here For The Answer]
QUESTION 279 : The phrase "for the remission of sins," used by Peter in Acts 2:38, is also used to describe John the Baptist's baptism (Luke 3:3; Mark 1:4), but none supposes that his baptism literally washed away people's sins (why would they need to later be rebaptized? Cf. Acts 19:1-6). The word "for" in the Greek (_eis_) need only mean "with a view toward," for we know that the Jews baptized people "for" such things as "freedom," "God's justice," etc." Isn’t that so? [Click Here For The Answer]
QUESTION 280 : Is the formula an unnecessary detail? [Click Here For The Answer]
QUESTION 281 : In Acts 8:16, 10:48, and 19:5, the details of the baptismal ceremony are not set forth. What is set forth is a condensed, brief, abridged reference to the sacred experience. The words describe the sphere, the foundation or ground of baptism, rather than the prescribed words of the formula. Is this true? [Click Here For The Answer]
QUESTION 282 : Are there any prerequisites for water baptism? [Click Here For The Answer]
BACK TO INDEX