Doctrinal Conference 2009 (Atlanta West) - Page 5

Steve Epley · #41 08-01-2009, 12:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CC1

I also believe that the Biblical record is clear that they baptized In Jesus name. It is only logical that if every instance where the formula is described it is in the name of Jesus that the other instances where no formula is described it was in the same way.

There is not one single recorded instance of water baptism being done in the "name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost".

Your roots are coming out!

Steve Epley · #42 08-01-2009, 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AtlantaBishop

Hey Brother Epley, I believe they were all baptized in the name of Jesus! I have been told on here that I did not believe that but I do believe it and I have never baptized anyone any other way other than using the Name of Jesus in water baptism.

There you go!!!!!!!!!

In the mouth of two or three witnesses.

ThePastorsCoach · #43 08-01-2009, 12:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

There you go!!!!!!!!!

In the mouth of two or three witnesses.

I have heard that I would make a GOOD Apostolic Preacher! LOL

Steve Epley · #44 08-01-2009, 12:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AtlantaBishop

I have heard that I would make a GOOD Apostolic Preacher! LOL

You did do it I heard you. COME HOME!

pelathais · #45 08-01-2009, 04:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

There are NO Christians who have NOT been baptized in Jesus Name just for the record.

And, when we add your other caveat - Holy Ghost baptism as evidenced by speaking in other tongues - we have "NO Christians" at all from about the year 200 AD until 1913 AD.

A period of over 1700 years out of the 2000 years of the Church Age with NO Christians!"

You're not part of that "majority on AFF that doesn't care about doctrine" are you?

pelathais · #46 08-01-2009, 04:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Light

I don't get it why are they having two men who do not believe what the other is saying is necessary for salvation teach at the same meetings. The last I heard DS doesn't believe Jesus Name baptism is necessary for salvation.

I can't speak for DS - but the impression that I get is that he and DB are both in emphatic agreement that repentance accompanied by sincere faith in Jesus Christ is the basic foundation of any Christian salvation experience.

mizpeh · #47 08-01-2009, 04:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pelathais

And, when we add your other caveat - Holy Ghost baptism as evidenced by speaking in other tongues - we have "NO Christians" at all from about the year 200 AD until 1913 AD.

A period of over 1700 years out of the 2000 years of the Church Age with NO Christians!"

You're not part of that "majority on AFF that doesn't care about doctrine" are you?

How do you know this, Pel? Because it was written down in a history book, it didn't happen?

pelathais · #48 08-01-2009, 05:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Do you mean they won't come out and condemn to hell anyone who hasn't obeyed Acts 2:38, or who hasn't walked in holiness by striving against sin, or who is a Trinitarian?

I'd pretty much guarantee the first and last part of what you said:

Quote:

"Do you mean they won't come out and condemn to hell anyone who hasn't obeyed Acts 2:38...or who is a Trinitarian"

The second part is rather subjective, as you yourself can attest. I would expect that they would stay in the bounds of generalities on that one.

pelathais · #49 08-01-2009, 05:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mizpeh

How do you know this, Pel? Because it was written down in a history book, it didn't happen?

Because it is written down all over history that it didn't happen. And, I'm made a little more confident when a friend

with your zeal cannot even give a single example.

It just didn't happen. But the implications aren't so much about what this says concerning Acts 2:38. The real implications seem to surround the meaning of Matthew 16:18.

mizpeh · #50 08-01-2009, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pelathais

Because it is written down all over history that it didn't happen. And, I'm made a little more confident when a friend

with your zeal cannot even give a single example.

It just didn't happen. But the implications aren't so much about what this says concerning Acts 2:38. The real implications seem to surround the meaning of Matthew 16:18.

Pel, I meant to say that "IF it isn't written down in a history book THEN we can be assured that it (someone somewhere on this earth was filled with the Spirit with the sign of speaking with other tongues and baptized in Jesus name) NEVER happened? Isn't that an argument from silence?