UPCI

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by Sherri

Hoovie, that is one handsome young man you're holding!!!

Originally Posted by Hoovie

You noticed too?? He is a keeper for sure!

I noticed too and meant to say something!

He's handsome!!!

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by Mr. Steinway

I believe it's the authority BEHIND the name that makes the difference; not the authority of the name itself. BTW, I believe baptism saying "In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ" is the most accurate, but not the magic formula.

I like that way too --- in the name of the Lord is mentioned in scripture more than just in Jesus name. It's all about understanding Jesus is LORD!

[Sam]

ALL authority has been given unto me in heaven and in earth,
therefore
go and baptize in that name that defines all that God is.....

What is that name that defines our God?
Could it be YHWH-Savior? Or Jesus in English?

Could that be God's highest name for this church age or kingdom dispensation?

Could that be a name shared by the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost?

[scotty]

Originally Posted by jfrog

How about you stop being a hypocrite then and start ending all your posts in Jesus' name I mean if you believe ya should do ALL things in Jesus' name then its time you start doing ALL things that way.

EDIT: None of those scriptures you posted other than the ones you already have say anything about baptism. Why even bring them up?

Since you still have no meat to add to the discussion I'll leave your post with TM's.

Originally Posted by Sam

This wasn't asked of me but I'll chime in.

Some of our elders taught that the triune or three-one God has a triune or three-one name. As Father He is called Lord; as Son He is called Jesus; and as Holy Ghost He is called Christ, therefore God's compound name is "Lord Jesus Christ." I personally do not believe that. It is my opinion that the one name shared by the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is Jesus or Yeshua which means JHWH-Savior. Since there are several people called Jesus in our New Testament (including Joshua the successor of Moses) I believe it is best to say "Jesus Christ" to show plainly that you are speaking of Jesus the Christ/Messiah and not some other Jesus (but I'm sure God would know which Jesus you were referencing if you left off "Christ").

Thanks to you and others as well for your insight and opinions.

I personally feel the same as Sam, while I see evidence in scripture that points to baptism in Jesus name, as Sam says, its not specifically stated so, though in my opinion you would have to really ignore some things to go the other way. I agree also with Steinway and Hoovie that the name of Jesus is important over baptism just so the person being dunked understands fully by what authority their sins are being washed away and forgivness is given. In saying that I could also say that if one were learned or fully understood that Jesus is that authority then if dunked under the titles it would still be baptism due to the persons full understanding of being cleansed under the blood of Christ.

Sis Alvear, So sorry for the hijacked thread. As UPC member I appreciate the good words you have said here and thank you for bothering to bring it up despite probably already knowing the rocks that would come flying your way for doing so.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Mr. Steinway

I believe it's the authority BEHIND the name that makes the difference; not the authority of the name itself. BTW, I believe baptism saying "In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ" is the most accurate, but not the magic formula.

Bingo.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by scotty

Since you still have no meat to add to the discussion I'll leave your post with TM's.

I've actually added quite a bit...

1. I've added that the apostles baptized in a title.
2. I've added that no matter how you explain them using a title it makes all the other accounts ambiguous at best because whatever principle you use to explain it away, I can use that same principle and apply it to the verses you keep quoting and explain them away.
3. I've added that Colossians 3:17 doesn't mean to literally say Jesus name over everything we do else you would be a hypocrite for accusing others of not following this scripture when you yourself don't say in Jesus name to your every action.
4. Basically my whole point was what you finally admitted to in the post below. That scripture doesn't specifically state what words should be said over baptism.

Originally Posted by scotty

Thanks to you and others as well for your insight and opinions.

I personally feel the same as Sam, while I see evidence in scripture that points to baptism in Jesus name, as Sam says, its not specifically stated so, though in my opinion you would have to really ignore some things to go the other way. I agree also with Steinway and Hoovie that the name of Jesus is important over baptism just so the person being dunked understands fully by what authority their sins are being washed away and forgivness is given. In saying that I could also say that if one were learned or fully understood that Jesus is that authority then if dunked under the titles it would still be baptism due to the persons full understanding of being cleansed under the blood of Christ.

Sis Alvear, So sorry for the hijacked thread. As UPC member I appreciate the good words you have said here and thank you for bothering to bring it up despite probably already knowing the rocks that would come flying your way for doing so.

You started this part off soooo good by saying that scripture is silent about what words should be said over baptism. But then you go right back to what got our discussion started in the first place.

You first accuse others of ignoring some things of the bible. By you doing this it is apparent that you really don't understand what I've been saying about Acts 10:48. If you had understood then you wouldn't be able to accuse others of ignoring the bible for it would be obvious how their belief makes as much sense as yours.

You then say that invoking the name of Jesus over baptism is important. You believe that the name of the Father and the name of the Son and the name of the Holy Ghost are all Jesus. It seems to me that baptizing in the titles ought to be equivalent to baptizing in Jesus name for you. You believe both Jesus and those titles all refers to the same person therefore to the same authority. So why make such a big deal about whether baptism is in the titles or in the name? Shouldn't it all be the same to you?

In my opinion, apostolics insistence that baptism must be in Jesus name has everything to do with making a point in the oneness vs. trinity debate. And that I don't think is right because baptism was never intended to be about who God was, it was intended to be about the forgiveness of our sins and identifying with Christ. I think trintarians are guilty of the same thing though.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Mr. Steinway

I believe it's the authority BEHIND the name that makes the difference; not the authority of the name itself. BTW, I believe baptism saying "In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ" is the most accurate, but not the magic formula.

I can pretty much agree with this

[scotty]

Originally Posted by jfrog

I've actually added quite a bit...

1. I've added that the apostles baptized in a title.
You can show where they "specifically" said this over baptism ? Same question you have asked me.
2. I've added that no matter how you explain them using a title it makes all the other accounts ambiguous at best because whatever principle you use to explain it away, I can use that same principle and apply it to the verses you keep quoting and explain them away.
Have not been trying to explain anything away, have been quoting scripture and discussing my understanding of that scripture and asking for discussion on it, Im not here to argue or be called a hypocrite.
3. I've added that Colossians 3:17 doesn't mean to literally say Jesus name over everything we do else you would be a hypocrite for accusing others of not following this scripture when you yourself don't say in Jesus name to your every action.
Ummm, ok,
4. Basically my whole point was what you finally admitted to in the post below. That scripture doesn't specifically state what words should be said over baptism.
Which is why we study scripture as a whole and in context by using other scriptures to understand His will.



You started this part off soooo good by saying that scripture is silent about what words should be said over baptism. But then you go right back to what got our discussion started in the first place.

You first accuse others of ignoring some things of the bible. By you doing this it is apparent that you really don't understand what I've been saying about Acts 10:48. If you had understood then you wouldn't be able to accuse others of ignoring the bible for it would be obvious how their belief makes as much sense as yours.
Not accusing anyone of ignoring the bible, or rather that was not what I meant, my point was I answered your reply concerning the titles in Matthew with scriptural references. You answered mine with "hypocrite" and stating my references were irrelevant without anything other than your sarcasm as reference.

You then say that invoking the name of Jesus over baptism is important. You believe that the name of the Father and the name of the Son and the name of the Holy Ghost are all Jesus. It seems to me that baptizing in the titles ought to be equivalent to baptizing in Jesus name for you. You believe both Jesus and those titles all refers to the same person therefore to the same authority. So why make such a big deal about whether baptism is in the titles or in the name? Shouldn't it all be the same to you?

In my opinion, apostolics insistence that baptism must be in Jesus name has everything to do with making a point in the oneness vs. trinity debate. And that I don't think is right because baptism was never intended to be about who God was, it was intended to be about the forgiveness of our sins and identifying with Christ.

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:

Originally Posted by Hoovie

Trouble, that's true in part I think.

What makes it true is knowing that the recipient of baptism really is calling on the name of Jesus for forgiveness himself. If that's the case then the words spoken by any third party becomes something of an important secondary issue. I say important, because I can't imagine anything related to initiation into the Body of Christ being unimportant. Even as a formality for clarity it's a good practice to invoke the name of the Lord at baptism.

Originally Posted by n david

In Matthew 28:19 Jesus is speaking to His disciples. Men who knew, especially Peter, who the name of the titles was. They knew Jesus was not just a prophet, but the son of God.

Peter was speaking to non-believers in Acts 2. Men who did not know who the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were. And Peter made it clear and gave them which name the titles were for when he said they must be baptized, in the name of Jesus Christ.

Originally Posted by Mr. Steinway

I believe it's the authority BEHIND the name that makes the difference; not the authority of the name itself. BTW, I believe baptism saying "In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ" is the most accurate, but not the magic formula.

Thanks for your discussion though, some points you made did give me more to study on.

[scotty]

Originally Posted by Mr. Steinway
I believe it's the authority BEHIND the name that makes the difference; not the authority of the name itself. BTW, I believe baptism saying "In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ" is the most accurate, but not the magic formula.

Originally Posted by jfrog

I can pretty much agree with this

Which part ?

[DAII]

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.

JFrog ... you are talking to dead wood.

Scotty will never able to show you a doctrine of necessary invocation for salvation.

The very identity of some Oneness Apostolics is wrapped around this doctrine ... if they can't argue this point and ostracize a large number of the body of Christ on this issue ...

their very existence is threatened.