Expert: Rev. Frank Ricketts - 1/16/2005

Question
Bright Blessing Rev. Ricketts,

#1 Gen.27:1-
Could Issac not simply take back his blessing after he found out the truth that Jacob had decieved him?
Rebekah was the one who encouraged Jacob to deceive his father, but there is no mention of what her consquences were. "Let the curse fall on me".
Mathew 10:13 (mentions taking back a blessing) This is why I asked the question of Issac and Jacob.

#2. If a person was a Christian and was baptized, but later in life gave up their faith to follow another religion, then return back to Christanity would they have to once again be baptized?
Acts 16:30 He was instantly baptized and all his household. Does this mean if our parents are baptized our household members are spiritually baptized too without their own will, desire or presence?

I ask this because this is was what I did. Now, I am studing the Word of God at present on my own. I have no current church home at present time. I need to be sure I find a new home which I am seeking. This is such an important decision so I am activly searching for it. God will turn my eyes and ears to it. I hope you won't mind too much if I keep coming to you for answers to what may sound like dumb immature questions.

What was your surmon on today? Thank you Rev. Ricketts for your patience and understanding.
Wishing you much happiness.

Betty

Answer
  In the matter of the first question:

   In the view of God's scrutinizing perfections, both men were guilty, rejection deserving sinners. This must be remembered. God chose to favor Jacob purely for reasons of His grace, not merit in the man. Since both men were sinners, if God were to chose on the basis of their personal qualifications, neither would have been chosen, nor us for that matter. Sure, Jacob was a scallywag, but Esau was a sinner as well. Later on, he continued to despise his birthright as you see in Genesis 33:9 and didn't make that an issue at all. You see, Esau was more interested, initially, in God's blessing to him than in God's relationship to him, while Jacob, it must be admitted, was interested in both God's blessing and God's relationship. That was a crucial difference between the two men and one which God acted upon fully knowing, for it was He who made that difference, hidden in the depths of both men's hearts.
   Rebekah was directed by the oracle of God, which was that the elder should serve the younger; and therefore Rebekah does this action, and cannot bear to see her husband trying to defeat the oracle of God. But, the means were bad, and no way justifiable. So,  God left her to herself, to take this indirect course, that he might have the glory of bringing good out of evil, and of serving his own purposes by the sins of men, and that we might have the satisfaction of knowing that, though there is so much wickedness and deceit in the world, God governs it according to his will, to his own praise. Rebekah basically served a purpose without consequence.

In the matter of the second question:

   There has been much discussion concerning whether baptism should use the words "in the name of Jesus Christ" or "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost". Keep in mind that the Bible sends one and only one message. Anything else is false. So, to analyze this concern, we must turn back to the Bible to see what it says regarding how baptism is to be carried out.
From the day the Church began, baptism in the New Testament Church has always been in the name of Jesus Christ. On the day of Pentecost, Peter instructed those religious Jews who had gathered for a religious celebration to "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." (Acts 2:38)
   This was not an arbitrary instruction by Peter, because Jesus himself in his last words to the disciples had informed the disciples that Christ was the one who suffered and rose from the dead the third day and that "repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name" (Luke 24:45-51) The disciples followed this commandment by preaching repentance and remission of sins through baptism in the name of Jesus Christ. (Acts 2:38, 10:42, 19:1-6)
   Acts 4:10-12 also clearly states that Jesus is the name in which there is salvation. It goes on to say that there is no other name (other than the name of Jesus Christ) by which we can be saved. Knowing that baptism is part of salvation, according to I Peter 3:21, there can be no doubt that baptism must be in the name of Jesus Christ.
Also, Colossians 3:17 expresses this perhaps clearest of all: "Whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus". All of our religious deeds, including baptism, must be done in this saving name. Ephesians 4:5 closes the argument by declaring that there is only "one" baptism. We know from even this small selection of scriptures that this one baptism is in the name of Jesus Christ.
   In fact, the only time the words "Father, Son and Holy Ghost" are used, is in a descriptive manner in Matthew 28:19. First, let us recall that the Bible has already established that baptism must be carried out in the name of Jesus Christ. Notice also that in Matthew 28:19 the word "name" is singular, not plural. Jesus was showing himself as the fulfillment of Isaiah 9:6 in which it was prophesied that a child would be born, a son given, who would be called Wonderful Counselor, The Everlasting Father, The Mighty God, the Prince of Peace, and so on. There is never any confusion about whom Isaiah is speaking. Even though the words "son", "Father" and "God" are used here, it is quite clear that this is speaking of Jesus, and Jesus only. Reading Matthew 28:19 in view of this makes it even clearer -- Jesus is the saving name (so also says Matthew 1:21) and baptism must be done in his name.
   But you've already been baptized, you say? When Paul found disciples who had been baptized, but not in the name of Jesus Christ, he did not accept their baptism as a proper Church baptism. True, they were believers, because they are called disciples. However, they did not have the full understanding. When Paul addressed them, they did not become offended, but accepted Paul's admonition , and they were baptized all over again in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, according to the prescription that Jesus left the apostles. (Acts 19:1-6)
   Why should we argue about this? Jude instructs us to "earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints." Notice his choice of words. Contend means to debate with and correct those who call themselves religious, and to stand for truth. The faith indicates (along with Ephesians 4:5) that there is only one faith. The fact that this faith was once delivered unto the saints states that this one faith is only delivered once and for all. Any other doctrine delivered later is not of God. It is interesting to note that only at the Council of Nicea some 300 years after Christ went back to heaven, did any religion officially institute baptism using the actual words "Father, Son , and Holy Ghost." The apostles, including Jude, all preached baptism in the name of Jesus Christ.
   So, the question is not when you were baptized, but rather how you were baptized. And no, after you have been baptized once in Jesus name, there is no further need to be baptized again.


   We have online sermons on our site that you can listen to. Please visit (This is not a link, you will have copy it) http://24.166.2.10/daystar/sermon.html

   Latest sermon: "Why eat the peanuts off the floor, when you can have the cotton candy!"

   Visit our main site at http://daystartab.cjb.net