[pelathais]

Originally Posted by The Dean

BUMP:

Just wondering why nobody remotely addressed this? I thought it was a good analogy of what those do that insist on putting things in water baptism that aren't necessary.

To me it's like saying, "I baptize you in the name the Father, Son, Holy Ghost, Rose of Sharon, Lilly of the Valley and Lion of the Tribe of Judah. Eenie, meanie, mynie, moe - catch a tiger by it's toe - Peter Piper picked a peck of pickled peppers and yo ho ho and a bottle of - (well, okay, not that part) - And it shall come to pass in the last days - Go and sin no more - rise, take up thy bed - and in Jesus Name."

WHY add what isn't necessary. It's the Name that God required.

Why put three more unnecessary medicines in the shot when all it takes is the right ONE to cure me?

Give me the name. You can keep the rest.

Excellent point, however the 1st Century church seems to have emphasized what the convert was saying and believing not so much what the liturgical officiant was pronouncing over the baptismal font (Acts 2:21 and Acts 22:16).