Quote:
Originally Posted by scotty
In my opinion the bold above is a strawman argument that shows whats really on your mind. As you see in the quotes below, others state why the importance is made in Jesus name baptism, and as I have said if the person is learned and understands its the authority of Jesus Himself then the titles would be ok, though not suggested. But at least we know now the base behind your opinion. This was never about the trinity/oneness debate. I have no questions or need to study/discuss that doctrine.
bump:
Thanks for your discussion though, some points you made did give me more to study on.
|
1. The only two ideas that have been proposed about what it means by "in the name of the Lord" in
Acts 10:48
a. It means they actually said these words. In this case it is a title and we have definitive proof that the name of Jesus does not need to be said over baptism.
b. It means that these words were not actually said over baptism. In this case you say that when the apostles baptized in the name of the Lord they actually used the words "In the name of Jesus". However, it would be just as easy to claim that every account of baptism in Acts follows this same principle that when the bible says they baptized in the name of Jesus or Lord or anything like that, that they actually used the words "In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost."
2. In other words I don't have to show that they actually baptized using the words "in the name of the Lord" because I've shown whether they did or did not, that I can follow the same principles you must use and show that it can just as easily be true that the baptism wasn't done with the words "in the name of Jesus".
3. I'm sorry I called you a hypocrtie. All I meant to do was show that no one uses
Colossians 3:17 to mean that the words "in Jesus name" should be said after everything we do.
4. We study scriptures to get a better understanding that is true. But ultimately we ought to be silent where the bible is silent.
-------------------------
You said my last argument was a strawman one. You gave me some big proof that it was not. One of the three people you quoted that you agreed with (ndavid) stated that the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is Jesus and thats why we should baptize in Jesus name. That argument corresponds directly with oneness. In fact by using that argument oneness doctrine is injected directly into baptism. In other words, that argument makes baptism in Jesus name not about whether baptism should be done in Jesus name or not but instead about whether one believes in oneness or not. That argument is why I say baptism in Jesus name is really a front for oneness doctrine.
Further, I'm really curious as to how you will answer this question. If the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are all Jesus, then what difference does it make if someone is baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost instead of the name of Jesus? Isn't it the same authority that they are baptized in? (And you already said it was the authority that made the difference in your quote of mr steinway).
Threaded Mode
