UPCI

[jfrog]

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).

[Aquila]

There isn't a "formula" for water baptism. It was simply done with the convert calling on the name of the Lord and the elder baptizing them in the authority of Jesus Christ. No specific wording was necessary. The only thing required to make baptism effectual was that the candidate be calling upon the name of the Lord, it doesn't matter what some preacher or priest repeats over you.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by 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.



Which part ?

It's about the authority behind the name. I've been saying that all along so of course I agree with that.

I think the bible is simply way too ambiguous when it comes to what if anything was said over people being baptized. So, I think baptism using the words "in Jesus name" is a fine way to be baptized. In fact I even think (though I don't really have much of a reason though) that if the apostles said anything over people being baptized it was probably words like "in the name of Jesus" or "in the name of the Lord". Something like that. Mainly because telling people what Jesus had done was the focus of their ministry.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by DAII

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.

As long as one studies and prays for truth then there is hope for them. I'm not saying I have all the truth. I'm as confused as they get about most things. But sometimes it takes a spark to get people started wondering and looking into something. And I'm definetly not exempt from that either.

[scotty]

Originally Posted by DAII

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.

As usual, your analogy of my discussion is way deeper than I can comprehend. Your intelect is over my head. Not sure the picture I'm looking at is that big.

Originally Posted by jfrog

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).

Yes, just as I said, If the person being baptized understands that their salvation is by the authority of Jesus Christ then I agree. But as others have said, because most do not fully understand this at baptism it is helpful to their understanding to do so.

Originally Posted by jfrog

It's about the authority behind the name. I've been saying that all along so of course I agree with that.

I think the bible is simply way too ambiguous when it comes to what if anything was said over people being baptized. So, I think baptism using the words "in Jesus name" is a fine way to be baptized. In fact I even think (though I don't really have much of a reason though) that if the apostles said anything over people being baptized it was probably words like "in the name of Jesus" or "in the name of the Lord". Something like that. Mainly because telling people what Jesus had done was the focus of their ministry.

So then from scripture we conclude the same. Not neccesarily that its "required" but that it is very probable. I can see what you mean that some could or do use this discussion to favor oneness. Thats not my intent nor in my mind do I connect the two. I have actually had discussion with "Jesus name baptism" believers who argue for the trinity. (it was an interesting discussion)

[Hoovie]

I Think all should baptize in Jesus name - even speaking the name at the baptism. However, I do not believe stating the "Father, Son and Holy Ghost are all Jesus" is a fair or proper representation of the Godhead at all.

[Sister Alvear]

I am deeply thankful that I know the name of Jesus...such an awesome blessing.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by scotty

Yes, just as I said, If the person being baptized understands that their salvation is by the authority of Jesus Christ then I agree. But as others have said, because most do not fully understand this at baptism it is helpful to their understanding to do so.

Just so I can get a better idea of where you are coming from, would you say that in general those baptized with the words in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost understand that their salvation is by the authority of Jesus? Or would you say that those baptized that way ought to be rebaptized with the words in Jesus name?

Originally Posted by scotty

So then from scripture we conclude the same. Not neccesarily that its "required" but that it is very probable. I can see what you mean that some could or do use this discussion to favor oneness. Thats not my intent nor in my mind do I connect the two. I have actually had discussion with "Jesus name baptism" believers who argue for the trinity. (it was an interesting discussion)

I'd say that was an interesting discussion lol. And it sounds like we are saying about the same thing.

[DAII]

Originally Posted by Sister Alvear

I am deeply thankful that I know the name of Jesus...such an awesome blessing.

I am thankful I know Jesus Christ.

[DAII]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

I Think all should baptize in Jesus name - even speaking the name at the baptism. However, I do not believe stating the "Father, Son and Holy Ghost are all Jesus" is a fair or proper representation of the Godhead at all.

I agree ... there are distinctions to be made. And the apostolic writers made such distinctions.