In the Name of Jesus




Yüklə 126.03 Kb.
tarix17.04.2016
ölçüsü126.03 Kb.


Chart Index - Baptismal Formula
Affirmative

2-- What Does It Mean, To Do Something "In the Name of Jesus" ?

3- Colossians 3:17 - What Does It Mean ?

4-- Colossians 3:17 - Do ALL in the Name of the Lord

5-- Colossians 3:17 - SAY The Name ?

6. I Corinthians 10:31 - Do All To The Glory Of God

7- What Peter and Paul SAID

8- What words were spoken over those that were baptized? (according to the record)

9- Matthew 28:19 - "In the Name of" Doesn't Mean "Say The Following Words"

10- Acts 2:38 - "Repent" is Also "In the Name of Jesus Christ"

11. Why Is This Issue Important ?

12--In Manson’s Name


Rebuttal

13. Colossians 3:17 - Only Invoke The Name (Orally) When You Give Thanks ?


Negative

14- Either It Doesn't Mention Baptism, Or It Doesn't Mention What Was Said, Or It Mentions Neither

15. Jeremiah 14:14 - Prophesy Lies In My Name

16. Matthew 28:19 - Name Singular ?

17. Mark 16:17 - Jesus' Name Required in Casting Out Devils ?

18. Acts 3:16 - The Name Was Used In Healing ?

19. Acts 15:17

20. Acts 19:5 - Why Were They Rebaptized ?

21. Acts 22:16

22. Ephesians 3:15 - The Family Name is Jesus ?

23. James 2:7

24- The "In The Name Of" Passages

25. Jesus is Name of the Father (John 5:43)?, of the H.G. (John 14:26)?

26. Name Called At Circumcision ?

27. Encyclopedia ?

28. Baptizer Must Wear White Clothes ?

29. UPON Whom My Name Is Called ?

30. How Would You Know (unless it was said) ?



What Does It Mean, To Do Something "In the Name of Jesus" ?
"in the name of Christ" - "to do a thing ... by one's command and authority, acting on his behalf, promoting his cause" (Thayer, p.447)
"in the name of" - "(a) in appeal or reference to; (b) by the authority of; as the representative of; (c) as belonging to." (Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary of the English Language, 1976 edition, page 1193).
Relating specifically to baptism in the name …
Vine’s (page 100) - in the name … representing the authority of Christ … in recognition of the authority of … Matt 28:19, Acts 8:16
Thayer - “baptize (#907) in the name of Jesus Christ” - by the authority of the Lord, Acts 10:48
My opponent must prove "in the name of Jesus" means to invoke the name Jesus orally. All the evidence proves otherwise.

Colossians 3:17 - What Does It Mean ?
David Bernard (Oneness Pentecostal, in his book "The New Birth"):

The verse (Colossians 3:17) primarily means to say or do everything with the power and authority of Jesus, as His representative, as His follower, and in dependence upon Him.


Richard W. Forsythe (Oneness Pentecostal):

I admit that Colossians 3:17 is not talking about a formula.


Does my opponent agree with Mr. Bernard and Mr. Forsythe ?
OR does my opponent think every time we do anything in word or deed, we must say the word "Jesus" orally?
"In the name of the Lord Jesus" means exactly the same thing in Acts 2:38 as it does in Colossians 3:17. If it means "by the authority of Jesus" in Colossians 3:17, then that is what it means in Acts 2:38. It does not have anything to do with orally speaking the word "Jesus" in either passage!

Colossians 3:17

Do All in the Name of the Lord
Does my opponent think every time we do anything in word or deed, we must say the word "Jesus" verbally?, for example:

• whenever Mother makes lunch, v.18

• whenever Daddy kisses Mother, v.19

• whenever Son takes out the garbage, v.20

• whenever Daughter loads the dishwasher, v.20

• whenever Daddy spanks a child, v.21

• whenever Daddy drives a nail at his construction job, v.22
Remember, "Whatsoever" and "All" mean all these things in the context, and everything else, including baptism. This passage is teaching that baptism should be "in the name of the Lord" just like Acts 2:38, and since this passage is not requiring a spoken formula, neither could Acts 2:38.
"In the name of the Lord Jesus" means exactly the same thing in Acts 2:38 as it does in Colossians 3:17. It doesn’t have anything to do with orally speaking the word "Jesus" in either passage!

Colossians 3:17 - Say The Name ?
Why does my opponent believe Colossians 3:17 teaches the baptizer must say the name "Jesus" at baptism, but that the word "Jesus" does not need to be said when other things are being done "in the name of the Lord?"


The Action

In the name ?

SAY the name ?

whenever Mother makes lunch, v.18

Yes

No

whenever Daddy kisses Mother, v.19

Yes

No

Son takes out the garbage, v.20

Yes

No

Daughter loads the dishwasher, v.20

Yes

No

whenever Daddy spanks a child, v.21

Yes

No

Daddy drives a nail at his job, v.22

Yes

No

at water baptism, Acts 2:38

Yes

Yes

Remember, "Whatsoever" and "All" mean all these things in the context, and everything else, including baptism. This passage is teaching that baptism should be "in the name of the Lord" just like Acts 2:38 teaches, and since this passage does not require a spoken formula, neither could Acts 2:38.


"In the name" means exactly the same thing in Acts 2:38 as it does in Col 3:17. It doesn’t have anything to do with orally speaking the word "Jesus" in either case!

I Corinthians 10:31

Do All To The Glory Of God
Colossians 3:17: ... whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus …
I Corinthians 10:31: ... whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God
If Colossians 3:17 teaches we must say "I baptize you in the name of Jesus," then I Corinthians 10:31 would have to teach we must say "I baptize you to the glory of God."
If not, why not? They have the same wording.
The truth is - both are telling us what to do, not what to say.

What Peter and Paul Actually Said
In Acts 2:14-40, what Peter said is recorded in:

v.14 But Peter standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, & said unto them

v.38 Then Peter said unto them

v.40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying


But it is not recorded what is said by Peter when the baptizing took place:

v.41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.


In Acts 19:2-5, what Paul said is recorded in:

v.2 He said unto them

v.3 And he said unto them

v.4 Then said Paul


But there is no record of what is said by Paul when he baptized the Ephesians:

v.5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.


Neither is it recorded what the baptizer said anywhere else in the Bible.

What Words Were Spoken Over Those Who Were Baptized ?

(that is, according to the record)
Acts 2:38,41 the Jews on Pentecost ? it doesn’t say

Acts 8:12-13 the Samaritans ? it doesn’t say

Acts 8:36-38 the Ethiopian eunuch ? it doesn’t say

Acts 9:18, 22:16 Saul (Paul) ? it doesn’t say

Acts 10:47-48 Cornelius and his friends ? it doesn’t say

Acts 16:14-15 Lydia's household ? it doesn’t say

Acts 16:33 the Jailer's household ? it doesn’t say

Acts 18:8 the Corinthians ? it doesn’t say

Acts 19:5 the Ephesians ? it doesn’t say


It is never recorded what words were spoken over those that were baptized, anywhere in the Bible.

Matthew 28:19

"In The Name Of" Means "Say The Following Words" ?
My opponent must agree Matthew 28:19 is telling the baptizer what to do, not what to say (otherwise, the verse would be telling the baptizer to say the words "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost" which would contradict his position).
This is obvious, because "In The Name Of" couldn’t equate to "saying the following words," or Matt 28:19 would mean the baptizer has to say the words "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the HG," while Acts 2:38 would mean the baptizer has to say the words "in the name of Jesus Christ." That would be a contradiction in the Bible!
Try It Out For Yourself:

Matthew 28:19 - Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them saying the words Father, Son, and Holy Ghost

Acts 2:38 - Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you the baptizer saying the words Jesus Christ
The truth is, "in the name of" means the same in Acts 2:38 as it does in Matthew 28:19. In both cases, the Bible is telling the baptizer what to DO, not what to say.
David K. Bernard (oneness Pentecostal), The New Birth, page 175, commenting on Matt 28:19:

He was not giving instructions about the actual words to be used in … baptism, but … was indicating … the baptized person would by baptism pass into the possession of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Why not the same with “into” in Acts 8:16?



Acts 2:38

"Repent" Is Also "In the Name of Jesus Christ"
In Acts 2:38, "Repent" is also "in the name of Jesus Christ." Does my opponent believe the preacher must say verbally "you hereby repent in the name of Jesus," else the repentance is invalid (unscriptural)?
It can't mean two different things in the same verse, can it ?
It means repent by the authority of Christ, i.e., because Christ told you to do it, doesn’t it?

Why Is This Issue Important ?
Matthew 15:9,14: But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. ... Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.
II John vs. 9-11: Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
If we teach or accept false doctrine:

1. our worship is in vain (useless, worthless – we miss heaven)

2. we shall fall into the ditch (everlasting punishment)

3. we do not have God (miss heaven if no fellowship with God)



In Manson’s Name
Quote from an advertisement for a documentary about Charles Manson:

What goes on inside the criminal mind? How does a pathological liar instill loyalty so deep that followers willingly, happily, murder in his name?


What does the above quote mean ?

 that Manson’s followers invoked his name orally every time they murdered “in his name”

 that Manson’s followers murdered as representatives of Manson, by his command and authority, acting on his behalf, promoting his cause
I think we all know the answer,

and I think we all get the point.

Colossians 3:17

Only Invoke The Name (Orally) When You Give Thanks ?
According to this theory, the way you do something “in the name of the Lord” is to perform the action, and then at a later opportunity give thanks for it, closing the prayer with the words “in Jesus’ name.”
Then since water baptism is included in whatsoever you do in word or deed …

The way to perform baptism “in the name of the Lord” is to baptize the candidate, and then at a later opportunity give thanks for the baptism, closing the prayer with the words “in Jesus’ name.”


Whatsoever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord (includes, but is not limited to, giving thanks):

whenever we give thanks to God in prayer, John 14:13-14

• whenever Mother makes lunch, v.18

• whenever Daddy kisses Mother, v.19

• whenever Son takes out the garbage, v.20

• whenever Daughter loads the dishwasher, v.20

• whenever Daddy spanks a child, v.21

• whenever Dad drives nail at construction job, v.22


"In the name of Jesus" means exactly the same thing in Acts 2:38 as it does in Col 3:17. It doesn’t have anything to do with orally speaking the word "Jesus" in either passage !

Either The Passage Doesn't Mention Baptism,

Or It Doesn't Mention What Was Said,

Or It Mentions Neither
The Bible never says, not one time, what the Baptizer said when he baptized a person.

  • If the passage mentions what someone said orally, it doesn’t mention water baptism.

  • If the passage does mention baptism, then it doesn’t tell what the baptizer said orally.

Passages Used To Support My Opponent's Position



DOESN'T MENTION WATER BAPTISM

DOESN'T MENTION WHAT WAS SAID

MENTIONS NEITHER

I Samuel 25:10

Matthew 28:19

I Samuel 25:9

Matthew 1:21

Acts 2:38

Proverbs 18:10

Matthew 1:23

Acts 8:16

Isaiah 53:4-5

Matthew 24:5

Acts 10:48

Zechariah 14:9

Acts 3:6

Acts 19:5

Matthew 12:21

Acts 9:5

Acts 22:16

Mark 16:17

Acts 15:17

I Corinthians 1:13-15

Luke 24:47

Ephesians 3:15




John 5:43

James 2:7




John 14:26







Acts 3:16







Acts 4:12







Acts 4:18







Acts 5:40







Acts 10:43







Galatians 3:29







II Timothy 4:2







Hebrews 6:10







I Peter 2:24

Prophesy Lies In My Name

Jeremiah 14:14 (29:9, Matthew 24:5, Mark 13:6)


My opponent’s argument is that the prophets prophesied lies in God’s name, but they did not prophesy lies by God’s authority, therefore “in my name” does not mean “by my authority.”
Let’s first notice what “prophesy” means:

  • Vine’s – signifies the speaking forth of the mind and counsel of God … It is the declaration of that which cannot be known by natural means … the message of the prophet was a direct revelation of the mind of God

  • II Chronicles 36:12 … Jeremiah the prophet speaking from the mouth of the Lord

Just like Jeremiah 14:14 is using “prophesy” to mean “claim to prophesy,” it is also using “in my name” to mean “claim they were doing by my authority.” But they were just pretenders.


This shows that claiming to do something in God’s name (by his authority) is not the same as actually doing something in God’s name (by his authority).
Notice they didn’t necessarily have to say God’s name to claim to do it in his name. One (but not the only) example is they could have used God’s title:

  • “I prophesy by the authority of God.”

  • “I come by the authority of the President.”

  • “For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ” (Matthew 24:5)


Please show us one passage that tells what the baptizer actually said !

Matthew 28:19 - Name Singular ?
The Argument from Matthew 28:19:

The word "name" being singular shows that "Jesus" is the name of the Father, the name of the Son, and the name of the HG.


Genesis 48:16 "and the name (singular) of my fathers Abraham and Isaac" → Were Abraham and Isaac the same name? (see also Isaiah 9:6 and Joshua 23:7)
But even if it were true that "Jesus" is the name of the Father and of the Holy Ghost, that would not prove that you had to say the name "Jesus" when you baptized someone. My opponent needs to show us where someone said the name "Jesus" when they baptized someone.
The translators evidently thought that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were proper nouns, as they capitalized them (you cannot tell by capitalization in the Greek).

Mark 16:17

Jesus' Name Required in Casting Out Devils ?
That doesn't say anything about baptism.
Mark 16:17 doesn't mention what was orally spoken by the exorcist, and that is the issue !

Acts 3:6,16

The Name Was Used In Healing ?
Now if just one verse were given that tells what they said when they baptized someone. There must not be one, or my opponent would have given it, instead of a healing verse.
These verses do not prove "in the name" means "with the use of the name orally;" they were saying what they were doing, but the saying & the doing were two different things.
Does my opponent believe the name "Jesus" was always pronounced in healing? If not, then he doesn't have a parallel. What about the following passages that tell what the miracle worker SAID, but that do not indicate that they SAID "in the name of Jesus"?:

  • Acts 14:8-10 the impotent man healed in Lystra

  • Acts 9:40 Dorcas raised from the dead

  • Acts 13:9-11 Elymas struck blind

Not only does my opponent not have a parallel, his reasoning disproves his own position!



  • He believes that healing was to be done "in the name of Jesus."

  • Yet, he does not believe that Jesus' name was always spoken orally in healing.

  • This would mean that a person can do something in Jesus' name (healing or baptism) without speaking his name orally.

Even if they always did say the name Jesus when healing (which they didn't), that wouldn't necessarily mean that they always did it when they baptized someone.



Acts 15:17
James is here referring to Amos 9:12, "... and of all the heathen, which are called by my name ...." That name was not just to be called, but they would actually be called by that name.
Whose position will fit both passages ?




Acts 15:17

Amos 9:12

Acts 15:17 – Even all the Gentiles who are called by my name (NKJV)



… and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord ...

... and of all the heathen, which are called by my name ...

My Position → disciples called Christians Acts 11:26

Fits

Fits

My Opponent's Position

Fits

Cannot Fit

The perfect tense does not mean that something happens only once, but instead indicates that something "happened in the past, the results continuing to the present."


Besides, this passage says nothing about baptism. As a matter of fact, baptism is not mentioned anywhere in the whole chapter !
Conclusion: The name referred to in Acts 15:17 is "Christ" (in Christian), and has nothing to do with what the baptizer is to say.

Acts 19:5

Why Were They Rebaptized ?
"In the name of the Lord Jesus" in Acts 19:5 in particular means to do something because it is by the authority of Jesus' new law, not part of the old law (in this case, not John's baptism) → Heb 1:1-2, Col 2:14
It is not stated anywhere that they were rebaptized because they didn’t have a baptismal formula verbalized over them the first time. Just what is the difference between the two baptisms?

  • who was to be baptized (Jews versus All)

  • what is believed - Acts 19:4b (≠ Romans 10:9)

  • the confession (confess sins versus confess “Jesus is the Son of God”)

  • the reception of the Spirit ?

  • entrance into the kingdom / church

  • the duration


John the Baptist's baptism was never intended for the "Christian Dispensation"

Acts 22:16
The person getting baptized, not the baptizer, is told to “call on the name”:

  • Saul was to arise. Saul was to be baptized. Saul was to call on the name of the Lord.

  • Compare Acts 22:16 with "call on the name of the Lord" in Rom 10:13 and Acts 2:21. They are both referring to the baptizee obeying the gospel, not what the baptizer is do.

  • I have 3 interlinears and a list of 18 translations of this verse. Every one of these interlinears and translations indicate the one being baptized is the one that is to do the "calling on the name of the Lord." Does my opponent know of even one translation of Acts 22:16 that indicates the baptizer is the one that should call Jesus’ name?

One of the meanings of the Greek word translated "calling" is "to appeal to one, make appeal unto" (Thayer, page 239, e.g. Acts 25:11, 12, 25:21, 25, 26:32, 28:19). Here it means to "make appeal unto" the authority of the Lord; we call upon His promise to "wash away our sins if we'll be baptized," not by speaking His name, but by being baptized, doing what He has said to do to be forgiven.



    • I Pet 3:21 (NASV) says we “appeal” to God for a good conscience by being baptized.

    • Suppose a teacher told the class to raise their hand if they need to visit the bathroom. Then the way to request it would be an action; words wouldn’t be necessary.


Conclusion: In Acts 22:16, “calling on the name of the Lord” is an action the baptizee does in order to ask God to wash away his sins.

Ephesians 3:15

The Family Name is Jesus ?
Ephesians 3:15 says nothing about baptism. As a matter of fact, baptism is not mentioned anywhere in the whole chapter !
We are not named Jesus, we are named Christians - Acts 11:26
Conclusion: The name referred to in Ephesians 3:15 is "Christ" (in Christian), and has nothing to do with what the baptizer is to say.

James 2:7
This is talking about a name the readers were called ("by the which ye are called"), not just a name that was called over them. I would ask my opponent, are you called "Jesus," or are you called “Christian” ?
The exorcists in Acts 19:13 called the name "Jesus" over those who had evil spirits, but they didn't call those people "Jesus." See the difference?
Compare the wording:

James 2:7

I Peter 4:14-16

Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called?

If ye be reproached for the name of Christ ... if any ... suffer as a Christian

  • How do "they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called"?

  • How are we "reproached for the name of Christ"?

→ When we "suffer as a Christian."
Besides, baptism is not mentioned anywhere in the whole chapter !
Conclusion: The name referred to in James 2:7 is "Christ" (in Christian), and has nothing to do with what the baptizer is to say.

The "In The Name Of" Passages
These verses tell what to do, not what to say!
To help my opponent's position, these passages would have to read:
Acts 2:38 “Repent, and be baptized every one of you, with the baptizer saying the words 'I baptize you in the name of Jesus Christ' over you"
Acts 8:16 "... only they were baptized, with the baptizer saying the words 'I baptize you in the name of the Lord Jesus' over them"
Acts 10:48 "And he commanded them to be baptized, with the baptizer saying the words 'I baptize you in the name of the Lord' over them"
Acts 19:5 "When they heard this, they were baptized, with the baptizer saying the words 'I baptize you in the name of the Lord Jesus' over them"
If baptize “in the name of Jesus” means baptize “saying the word Jesus,” then baptize “in the name of the Father, Son, & Holy Ghost” (Matt 28:19) would mean baptize “saying the words Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.”

Jesus is the Name

of the Father (John 5:43) ?

of the Holy Ghost (John 14:26) ?
I Samuel 17:45 says David came "in the name of the Lord." Does this mean God's name is David?
But even if it were true that "Jesus" is the name of the Father and the HG, that still wouldn’t prove you had to say the name "Jesus" when you baptized someone. My opponent needs to show us where someone said the name "Jesus" when they baptized someone. Just one place will do.

Name Called At Circumcision ?
Argument: A child's name was called at circumcision; baptism is NT circumcision; therefore Jesus' name should be called at baptism?
Actually "the circumcision of Christ" is not baptism; instead it is the "putting (cutting) off ... (forgiving of) the sins” by God ("made without hands") at baptism (Colossians 2:11-13).
My opponent does not believe circumcision and baptism are parallel:

  • The name of the baby, not the name of God, was called at the baby's circumcision.

  • Children were circumcised. Does my opponent believe children should be baptized?

  • Only males were circumcised. Does my opponent believe that only males should be baptized?

What my opponent needs to do is find just one verse that shows the word "Jesus" was called orally by the baptizer.



Encyclopedia ?
My Opponent’s Argument: The Encyclopedia (or Authority / Commentary) says the formula was changed to "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost" sometime after NT times ?
We have to go by the Scriptures, not by men - II Timothy 3:16-17, II Peter 1:3, Gal 1:11
I have quotes from 3 Authorities that say the "triune" formula was used at the beginning:

  • Funk and Wagnalls New Encyclopedia, 1972, volume 3, page 177

  • A Dictionary of the Bible, by John D. Davis, 1969, page 265

  • An Outline of Church History, by Theodore Huggenvik, 1955, page 56

Here are quotes the Catholics use to prove infant baptism:

Hippolytus – Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them. - The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]

Origen – … according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants … - Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D 248]

Origen – The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. - Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]
What does this prove? Absolutely nothing, except that uninspired "authorities" disagree, and that you can't prove anything by them anyway.
Only the Scriptures should be used as proof (Acts 18:28)

Baptizer Must Wear White Clothes ?
Proof Texts used to prove Donahue’s made up law:


  • Isaiah 1:18 though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow

  • Mark 9:3 And his raiment became shining, exceeding white as snow

  • Revelation 7:14 and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb

  • Acts 22:16 arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins

Would my opponent agree that the following chart would effectively deny this false position?:


Passages Sometimes Used To Support This False Position

Doesn't Mention Water Baptism

Doesn't Mention What Was Worn

Mentions Neither

Mark 9:3

Acts 22:16

Isaiah 1:18

Revelation 7:14






This is the same approach that I am using to deny my opponent's position.


On the other hand, notice the following chart:
Passages Used To Support Baptism For Salvation

Doesn't Mention Water Baptism

Doesn't Mention Salvation

Mentions Both

John 3:16

Acts 18:8

Mark 16:16







I Peter 3:21

My opponent's position is parallel to the false position that the baptizer must wear white clothes !



Upon Whom My Name Is Called ?
Acts 15:17:

NKJV - all the Gentiles who are called by my name

NASB - all the Gentiles who are called by my name

NIV - all the Gentiles who bear my name


New Englishman's Greek Concordance - "by" (one definition)

John 5:2 Now there is at Jerusalem by (upon?) the sheep market a pool ...

Romans 10:19 "by" (twice)
Amos 9:12:

KJV - all the heathen which are called by my name

NKJV - all the Gentiles who are called by my name

ASV - all the nations that are called by my name

NASB - all the nations who are called by my name

NRSV - all the nations who are called by my name

NIV - all the nations that bear my name
James 2:7:

KJV - worthy name by the which ye are called?

NKJV - that noble name by which you are called?

ASV - the honorable name by which ye are called?

NASB - fair name by which you have been called?
We are not called Jesus; we are called Christians !

How Would You Know ?
How would you know a baptism was in Jesus' name unless the baptizer said the name Jesus ?
To which I would reply:

• by previous teaching

• by saying “I baptize in the name of the King of kings and Lord of lords” (Revelation 17:14)

• by saying “I baptize in the name of Christ” (Matthew 24:5 by your reasoning)

• by saying “I baptize in the name of the Lord” (Acts 10:48)

• by saying “I baptize in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost” (Matthew 28:19)


This argument would prove that a golf hole-in-one (when playing alone) is not really a hole-in-one until you tell somebody about it. After all, how would they know you did it, unless you told them?
However, for argument's sake, suppose I answered your question → we wouldn't know a baptism was in Jesus' name unless the baptizer actually said the name Jesus. What would that prove?
Suppose I claimed you couldn't know Jesus was doing something by the authority of the Father (Matthew 21:23), unless Jesus actually said he was doing it by the authority of the Father. What would that prove? Would it prove - doing something by the authority of the Father and saying you were doing it by the authority of the Father were the same thing? No, it would prove just the opposite; it would prove doing something by the authority and saying you are doing it by the authority are two different things. You can do one without the other.
Likewise, my opponent's argument proves that baptizing in the name of Jesus and saying you are baptizing in the name of Jesus are two different things. Just like hitting a hole-in-one and saying you hit a hole-in-one are two different things.

www.BibleDebates.info
available for download:

debate charts on various issues

audio of several debates

other Bible material
(256) 721-0726 PatDonahue@bellsouth.net





Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur ©azrefs.org 2016
rəhbərliyinə müraciət

    Ana səhifə