«Home

In What Name Should a Christian Be Baptized?

This arguement has been on in Christiandom for long.

While some believe in the strict adherance of Jesus' teachings:

Mathew 28:19- "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them[b] in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost..."  [/b]

Others rather follow in the steps  of the early apostles who baptised people in the  name of Jesus.

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

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

While there is so much contention about this even leading to the division of some denominations, i find no problem with the topic.

In my opinion, neither of the two Schools of  thought is wrong and  this is my arguement:

The father, Son and Holy spirit all answer to the name of Jesus. Notice it did not say "in the name(s)  of the father and of  the son  and of the Holy Ghost..." but it said, " in the name(singular) of the father ..."

The name of the father is Jesus; the name of the son is Jesus; the name of the Holy ghost is Jesus. The all answer to that all powerful name.

Colossians 2:9 - For in him (Jesus) dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

Phil. 2:9 -

"Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:  That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;  And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

What's your opinion on this?

Avatar
Newbie
23 answers

@stimulus,

While I will not want us to drag this issue to death, I just have to mention that an institution that has existed for 19 centuries without getting its basic core principles clarified is not in good shape. 

That is where we greatly differ. When Paul asked the question "unto what then were ye baptised"?  he wasn't thinking of water baptism, he was thinking of them being baptised into the Body of Christ!  Water baptism is not a pre-requisite to receing the gift of the Holy Spirit, but baptism with the Holy Spirit is. Baptism with the Holy Spirit takes place at the point of being born again. It is obvious that Paul initially thought these disciples were Christians but on hearing what they had to say, he concluded they were not.  Think about it, how can they be following John's doctrine solely after they must have heard of Jesus' death and resurrection and became christians? Paul taught them that Jesus is the one whom John preached about and they essentially need not be John's desciples any more.

Acts 19:2 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.

My understanding of Acts 19:1-6 indicates two types of baptism - 1. The baptism in water - which is same as the baptism of John  2. the baptism with the Holy Spirit - which took place when they believed. 

One other thing, the baptism with the Holy spirit is different from beignt filled with the Holy Spirit.

You cannot be born again without being baptised in the Holy Ghost.  It is through that baptism that you are made a part of the Body of Christ.  That is what 1 Cor 12:13 and Luke 3:16 - 17 teach.  The Disciples were filled with the Holy Ghost when hands were laid on them. Beign filled is not the same as being baptised with the Holy Spirit.  And every time in the book of Acts where people are filled with the Holy Ghost, it is evidenced by speaking in tongues. 

1 Cor. 1:14-17 ,  I know not whether I baptized any other. For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: So while he may have refered to the corinthians initially, he used the opportunity to maeke a general statement of his ministry.  Like I mentioned earlier, I do not believe the baptism you referenced in Acts 19:5 is what you claim it is.

Tha does not conclude tha the immersion was done in the name of Jesus as against in the name of the Father, Son or the Holy Ghost as commanded by Jesus.

Having said all that, I need to make something clear. My belief is that it makes no difference whether you are baptised in the name of Jesus, or in the name of the Father, Son or the Holy Spirit.  The most important baptism is the one done by Jesus Himself with the Holy Spirit. An unbaptised Christian is still a Christian since he/she is a member of that body.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Hi again @TayoD,

Enjoyed your riposte; and here's what I'd like you to consider:

No, my brother. I would have agreed with you if you and I have lived all through the 19th centuries and still dealing with these issues. However, that isn't the case; and I don't suppose that believers (especially those who were recently saved) are expected to know everything about the Christian faith even after a few years. However, I trust the Bible helps us to acknowledge that at every point in history, we all have different levels of maturity in our walk with Christ.

Even so, it does not negate the fact that it is yet another type of baptism. And I believe that a careful study of John 21:18-19 is exactly to the point as an illusration of what is meant by that type of baptism.

As to the mode of being baptized (immersion/water baptism), I agreed to their similarity by the statement: "Both are by immersion in water" (please read it again). Also, two elements - repentance and remission of sins - are present in both (Mark 1:4 and Luke 24:46-47). Yet, there is a huge difference between either type of baptism as far as the epistles expound them to us in their real meaning and significance.

However, here are a few questions and hints to help you think through why Paul had to re-baptize the dozen believers in Acts 19:

#1. We are not told in what Name John baptized people; other than the scriptures simply saying that his was a baptism 'unto repenance' (vs. 4; see Matt. 3:11), and unto the remission of sins (Mark 1:4; Luke 1:77 & 3:3).

#2. Now, as far as Paul's question was concerned, we can understand that both baptism were not the same: 'Unto WHAT then were ye baptized?' Their answer was: 'Unto John's baptism' (Acts 19:3).

#3. Now, based on the above, would you say that the apostle treated "John's baptism" as exactly the same as Christian baptism? If he thought they were the same, why then did he re-baptized those men who were called 'disciples' when Paul met them (vs. 1)?? It is clear from Paul's question, response and reaction of re-baptizing them, that John's baptism was not viewed as Christian baptism. It would be hideously unthinkable to repeat what one considers to be exactly the same thing in substance.

It is not by happenstance that they were called "disciples" when Paul met them in Acts 19:1. You would agree with me that they obviously would have heard of Jesus Christ from John's preaching (Acts 19:2 & 4 and John 1:30-31). The same John had categorically spoken about the Holy Ghost previsouly in the same instance that he mentioned Christ (Matt. 3:11; Mark 1:8; and Luke 3:16). So, it is highly improbable to arrive at an inferenece that those disciples had "never heard of the Holy Ghost" - they already had.

However, what we are to understand by Acts 19:2 is that they had not heard that the Holy Ghost was given already! ( compare John 7:37-39). The Holy Ghost had been mentioned already, and no one acquainted with the things of God could have been oblivious of the promise made concerning Him. This is confirmed in Acts 2:16-17 when Peter reminded his audience that the Holy Spirit had been promised in Joel 's prophecy. The problem with the disciples in Acts 19:2 was not that they never heard any mention of the Holy Ghost; but that they had not heard the promise of His outpouring being fulfilled.

Paul did not try to administer the baptism of 1 Cor. 12:13 to those disciples - indeed, no man can effect that, for that is the prerogative of the Lord Himself (Acts 2:47b). Please carefully note again the events of Acts 19:1-6. At least three baptisms were spoken of there: (a) John's baptism - by water, vs.3; (b) Christian baptism - by water, vs. 5; and (c) Spirit baptism - sovereignly by the Lord Himself, vs. 6.

You can see that there were two water baptisms in Acts 19: 3 & 5; and neither of them can be interpreted to mean the same thing as the Spirit baptism found in 1 Cor. 12:13.

Paul did lay his hands on the disciples AFTER he had re-baptized them in the Name of the Lord Jesus (Acts 19:5). You can't miss vs. 5 before going on to vs. 6. Being born again is not the same thing as 'baptism in the Holy Ghost'. People are born again by simply believing on the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 16:31 and 1 John 5:13). The baptism in the Holy Ghost is a distinct experience that may or may not be attended by special signs - such as speaking with tongues (Acts 2:4) or prophesying (Acts 19:6).

However, 1 Cor. 12:13 states that by one Spirit we have been baptized into the Body; and yet again, that is quite a distinct issue from the experience of Acts 2:4 where the disciples were filled with the Holy Ghost.

Yes, I remember Paul's bold statement in 1 Cor. 1:14-16. But hey, look at it again: "I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; . . .also the household of Stephanas." Paul was clear in his statement that he did not baptize any of the Corinthians other than those he mentioned. And no, he certainly was not categorically denying that he baptized those dozen Ephesian disciples in Acts 19:1&6 (Apollos was at Corinth at the time). Whatever the case, Acts 19:5 tells me that water baptism was administered by the statement: 'they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus'.

I coulnd't agree with you more.

Acts 10:48 - "And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days."

0
Avatar
Newbie

@stimulus,

I never said these issues should not be discussed.  Rather, it is a shame that after 19 centuries, we are still unable to come to the unity of the faith with regards to what amounts to the basic principles of our faith.  Can you imagine repaeting a class for 19 centuries? Doesn't that tell you something is wrong somehwere?

Acts 19:1-5 does not teach the dinstinction between the baptism of John (water baptism) and Christian baptism in water.  I am fully persuaded that the Disciples Paul met were not even christians until Paul showed them the way of Christ and they were baptised into the Body.  How can you be born again and never heard of the Holy Ghost? Besides, all they knew was water baptism and not the baptism of Jesus into the Body as Paul outlined in 1 Corinthians 12:13 - For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

Paul only laid His hands on them to receive the Holy ghost after he was sure they were born again. Baptism in water does not make you born again, it is baptism with the Holy Ghost that makes you born again.

Also remember that Paul said he never baptised (refering to water baptism) anyone other than Crispus, Gaius and the household of Stephanas - 1 Corinthains 1:14 to 16!!! That tells me that Acts 19 couldn't be refering to water baptism.

While some may think it's unimportant, I still believe a dinstinction should be made as to what type of baptism is referred to in the context we are discussing.  Most references are to baptism with the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ and not of water.  Peter was clear when he refered to the baptism of water in Acts 10, and the same with Phillip when he baptised the Eunuch in Acts 8.  

0
Avatar
Newbie

@babyosisi,

I don't think you were put on hot seat for not quoting the Bible or turning your remarks into a Bible study of sorts.

As you now admit, if it was a 'major one' you should have said so; more so as you can read that no one was arguing 'sprinkling and immersion'.

Your opinion.

It is not, and hasn't been a 'baseless argument.'

I didn't insinuate that. Do you suppose it?

Relax. I didn't have to narrow my rejoinders to your 'little-little things' - and that's why I mentioned them to clarify issues. If you don't like my mentioning anything else, too bad it's my rejoinder, not yours.

Thanks. I can see you have gained much profit from knocking yourself out first, yes?

0
Avatar
Newbie

Stimulus,I'm sure you understand exactly what I mean,just because I choose not to quote scriptures and turn my posting into a Bible study does not diminish my point in any way.

Every Christian knows the doctrine of baptism is a major one,I can understand if your argument was on sprinkling and immersion but this makes no sense.

I know the Apostolic church preaches that if you were baptised in the name of the father son and Holy Ghost,you ought to be rebaptised in Jesus' name which I think is ridiculous.

Whether the baptiser says I baptise you in the name of Jesus or in the name of the father son and Holy Spirit should not be cause for a baseless argument.

Are those baptised in the name of the father son and Holy Spirit baptised unto a different baptism?

And your mention of Paul and Moses beats me,did I mention Paul anywhere?

I do not engage in useless Biblical arguments that profit me nothing,so knock yourself out brother!!

0
Avatar
Newbie

@edochie,

Thanks for your response. I'll have to slice through your rejoinder and make my response accordingly so as to minimize lumping issues.

However, as regards my first question on who in the First Council penned Matthew 28:19, you circumvented it and gave no answers before launching into your thesis. The point is, that verse about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit was long written BEFORE the Council convened; and that is a direct pointer that makes your earlier claim untenable - because you had stated that:

That said, now your latest assumptions:

Throughout the Bible, God's personality as a divine Person has always been maintained, in just the same way that man is also a spirit being (Num. 27:16; Eccl. 12:7 and Heb. 12:23). If man is a 'person' because he is also a spirit being, then what is the grounds for denying that God is also a Person simply because He is a Spirit? The difference is that man in his 'person' is human; while God is a divine Person.

When you can grasp a good definition of 'person', then it no longer becomes difficult to understand that God is a divine Person. For anyone to deny that He is a Person, would be the same as ignoring and rejecting the divine revelation He has given of Himself.

There are actually many references to the Trinity in both the OT and the NT. The earliest allusion is found in Gen. 1:26 where God said: 'Let US make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness'. Many people argue that God was speaking to the angels when He said 'Let us'. My question is: where in ANY verse of the Bible are angels said to be co-creators with God?

Then again, in the NT there are such verses as Matt. 3:16-17 where the voice of 1Father is heard, following the descent of the 2Holy Spirit upon the 3Son of God who was being baptized in the Jordan river.

Another text in the Bible that point out the Trinity to us is 2 Cor. 13:14 - 'The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.'

Merely standing by your statement does not expound on what the Bible teaches on the Trinity. Indeed, Eph. 2:19-22 teaches that Jesus Christ is the chief cornerstone upon which believers are built; but that is no proof-text for a denial of the Trinity, nor is it a text that supports the view that Jesus Christ is God in three OFFICES.

Since you admit that Matthew 28:19 was a statement made by our Lord Himself, would that not be lucid evidence that simply throws out the argument against the Trinity? Otherwise, why then would the Lord Jesus Christ have made reference to the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, if God was never to be referred to as such?

Some words as 'rapture' and 'substitution' do not appear in the Bible; but they are not doctrines merely taught by men, unless you're ready to deny the foundations of the Christian faith as well. Even so, the word 'BIBLE' does not appear in Scipture - are we therefore to assume also that your reference to God's Word as the Bible is a false doctrine as well?

In the same way, the word 'Trinity', even when not appearing in the Bible itself, yet both qualifies and teaches the truth of Matthew 28:19 and other texts.

Which verse in that passage categorically says that 'the Holy Ghost is referred to as Jesus'??

What we should understand is that God has ever been the Trinity; and both the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost were involved in creation, redemption, and Pentecost (Gen. 1:1; Psa. 104:30; John 1:3; Eph. 3:9). We should never make the mistake of seeing 'the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost' as OFFICES - for the simple reason that it is NOT an 'office' that dwells in the believer, but rather God Himself (I Cor. 3:16; 1 John 4:12).

Again, our fellowship is not with a manifestation of an "office". Rather, the Bible teaches that 'our fellowship is with the Father, and with HIS Son Jesus Christ (1 John 1:3). This is why people who reduce the teaching of Scripture about God to fancy ideas like offices, titles, roles, etc. are deeply flawed in their thinking and unwittingly denying the Personality of God Himself.

Me, too. Cheers.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Stimulus,

If there were no mention of any semblance of the Trinity until the first Nicean Council, who among those in that meeting wrote Matthew 28:19?

Ans,

Throughout the bible there is no place God was referred to as a person. So, first,tell us where you have those semblances of Trinity in the Bible. Ephesians 2:19-22 (New International Version) Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. If we are built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets as it is written and Jesus Christ is the chief corner stone and John 10:35 stands that the word of God cannot be broken (no addition/subtraction),I still stand that trinity is a doctrine of men in line with it’s originators that has no biblical origin

Mathew 28:19 was made by our lord Jesus Christ himself

Since the word 'Trinity' does not appear in the Bible, does that necessarily make it a false doctrine?

Ans:

I believe totally in the Bible that God is a spirit not a person. So, anything that contradicts the bible you can qualify it better

Is Jesus both the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit at the same time?

Ans:

Take a look at this John 14:7 -10 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.

Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?

Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

Recall, John 14;26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Here the name of the Holy ghost is referred to as Jesus.

Secondly, where in the Bible did you read that "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost" is one God manifesting in three OFFICES? What do you mean by OFFICES?

Ans,

By the above bible quotation you should be able to understand what I mean by one God manifesting in three offices.God is eternal and created the world by his word.He manisfested his attribute of creation in God the father.To redeem mankind he came to world and the word was made flesh and dwelt among us(God the son).when the work of redemption was over he sent the holyspirit in his name as he promised to be with us till the end of the earth

Stimulus, I sincerely stand to be corrected with facts based on the scripture

0
Avatar
Newbie

@edochie,

That being your persuasion, I have three questions for you:

#1. If there were no mention of any semblance of the Trinity until the first Nicean Council, who among those in that meeting wrote Matthew 28:19?

#2. Since the word 'Trinity' does not appear in the Bible, does that necessarily make it a false doctrine?

#3. Is Jesus both the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit at the same time?

Again, I'd like for you to offer us the verse that says 'the Father, son and Holy Spirit bears the name Jesus Christ' - just one verse will do.

Secondly, where in the Bible did you read that "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost" is one God manifesting in three OFFICES? What do you mean by OFFICES?

0
Avatar
Newbie

loveth,

That Trinity is known to you does not make God three persons in one.The bible made it clear that God is a spirit and they that worship him must worship him in truth and spirit John4:24

The term trinity was used by Theophilus of Antioch in AD 180.There was no record of water baptism in three titles of the father,son and holy spirit until after the time of First Nicea council(meeting of catholic Bishops).Thus, you will find out from Genesis to Revelation that there is nothing like Trinity in the Bible

I quite agree with the 'Post' that says the father, son and holy spirit bears the name Jesus christ."Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is one God manifesting in three offices.In Baptism that name Jesus Christ must be mentioned.It carries authority(phillipians 2:7-10)

0
Avatar
Newbie

Hi @babyosisi,

The Bible does not treat baptism as "little little things". It is part of the principles of the doctrine of Christ, and believers should note well what God's Word teaches on every point.

Among the foundational tenets of our faith, Hebrews 6:1-2 lists at least 6 elements:

'1[/b]Therefore leaving [b]the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again -

(a) the foundation of repentance from dead works,

(b) and of faith toward God,

(c) 2[/b]Of the doctrine of baptisms,

(d) and of laying on of hands,

(e) and of resurrection of the dead,

(f) and of eternal judgment.'

It is only when we have a firm grasp of the foundational principles that believers can begin to move on 'unto perfection' (vs. 1); that's why we read in verse 3: 'And this will we do, [b]if God permit.' At least people discuss and even debate some of these principles, like (b) - faith toward God; (e) - the resurrection of the dead; and (f) eternal judgement. And nobody has come up to class them as "little little things". Why then should baptism be such?

It matters what Name we are baptized

It matters what Name is referenced in baptism. The Bible mentions it several times and makes it clear that people called on the name of the Lord at baptism (Acts 22:16). Christians are not baptized unto Moses (1 Cor. 10:2); nor are we baptized in the name of Paul or any of the apostles (1 Cor. 1:13, 15). It really does matter that the Bible makes clear in what Name we are baptized, and we should not treat it like 'what does it matter?'

0
Avatar
Newbie

Who cares if it were said father son and Holy spirit or just Jesus.

Why must Christians come up with all these little little things just to cause confusions.

Unless if someone is telling me that there is a difference between the names.

What does it matter?

Biko let's stop all this kind talk and move unto better things.

0
Avatar
Newbie

In the name of JESUS christ coz in his name, all knee shall bow. And there is no other name above the name JESUS

0
Avatar
Newbie

It is true that donnie's insinuation was wrong that the 'name' of the Father and of the Holy Spirit is Jesus. However, isn't it rather overboard to launch into sly invectives in your first engagement with him?

There - that is precisely the point donnie was trying to make in his original post:

0
Avatar
Newbie

@topic,

My thoughts are totally different from what has been discussed so far.  First of all, it is a shame that the Body of Christ is still fixated on an issue the Bible regards as an elementary principle.  No wonder we are in such a bad shape - we do not fully grasps the elementary principles of the doctrine of Christ. Hebrews 6:1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, 2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment

Does anyone notice that the word baptisms in that scripture is in the plural? So how many kinds of baptism do we have revealed in scripture?  Basically, there are 3 different kinds of baptism mentioned in the NT.  These are:

1.  The baptism of John - Water Baptism

2.  The baptism with the Holy Spirit - This is different from the infilling of the Holy Spirit or the annointing of the H.S.

3.  The baptism with fire - meant for the chaff or the children of disobedience at judgement.

I believe Jesus was refering to the baptism of John in Matthew 28:19 and the way to do it is exactly what Jesus mentioned - In the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.  Jesus wouldn't have a problem asking the baptism to be done in His name if He so requires. At least, we see this in His teachings on prayer.

Acts 2:8 and 19:5 refer to the second baptism - the baptism with the Holy Spirit.  In Acts 2, Peter said this baptism leads to the remission of sins and it is a prerequisite to receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost?  That should immediately jettison the idea that he was refering to the baptism of John.  The baptism with the Holy Spirit is done by Jesus and it is a one time event for the Believer.  It marks the point where we become Born Again and are made a part of the Body of Christ.  This is what John was refering to when he said "He will baptise you with the Holy Ghost and with fire."

The third baptism - baptism with fire is carried out by Jesus as well in judgment of the unbelievers.  This can be referenced in John's statement mentioned above that Jesus is the one to baptise with the Holy Ghost and with fire.

I will provide more proofs to support my thoughts are as we go along.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@ Donnie

This is not biblical in any form, or fashion. It only goes to show how far you all will go just to prove a point. Think about it logically and sensibly. The name Jesus was only ascribed to the Son at His birth, so your argument is false when you say that the father's name is Jesus, and the Holy Spirit's name is Jesus. You only say that because you have failed to read and understand plain English. Let us examine what the scripture says in Matthew 28.

18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore[c] and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

The word name as used here is used to signify representation, and authority. Its not saying that we must call the Father Jesus, or call the Holy Spirit Jesus as you're implying.

To be baptised in the name of Jesus isn't different from being baptised in the name (authority) of the Father, and of the Holy Spirit. If I come in your name I come in your authority. I represent you. If you accept me then you accept what the One who sent me has, and all that He stands for, and that is exactly what Jesus meant when He said what He said in Matthew 28.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@donnie,

Great reasoning there. To be baptized in Jesus' Name is to be baptized in the NAME of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19).

0
Avatar
Newbie

In the name of the father,of the son,and of the holy spirit.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Christians should be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. For somebody to be baptized in name of Jesus Christ is still the same thing, because the son is the Jesus Christ. Apart from that the son is Jesus christ, the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit is the Trinity (we all know that) and the trinity is one, I mean three in one.

The point I am trying to make here is that the Father is Jesus, and Jesus is the Father, the same as Jesus is the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit is Jesus. Also the Father is the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit is the Father. No one has to seprate them, because they are one.

You can still baptize somebody in the name of the Holy Spirit - all is the same thing. The trinity (three in one) is working together. But it is better to put the three together: I mean the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Well we all know that bible is mysterious to someone that don't have Holy Spirit. Let's ask Holy Spirit to explain to us more.

0
Avatar
Newbie

men i love arguing but when it comes to

GOD'S word drop it you don't argue the

Bible. it is the way it is no change

and forever it'll remain the way it is.

0
Avatar
Newbie

They were not wrong, but remember that not everything that happened were written in the Bible.

The ones HE wants us to know were revealed to us

0
Avatar
Newbie

IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER, SON AND HOLY SPIRIT AMEN

0
Avatar
Newbie

In the name of the FATHER, SON and HOLY GHOST

0
Avatar
Newbie

Do you think the apostles were wrong?

0
Avatar
Newbie
Your answer
Add image

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.