Quote:
Originally Posted by scotty
So then what is the name of the Lord ?
What is the name of the Father ?
What is the name of the Holy Ghost ?
What is the name of the Son ?
Why would it be recorded in scripture if it were not important what was spoken over baptism ? To come to your conclusion you are having to ignore scripture just for the sake of ignoring the whole point of the conversation. If you have no answers then simply say so.
I see Jesus commanding them to baptize in the "name" of the Father, the "name" of Son and the "name" of the Holy Spririt. The diciples response to this command was Acts 2:38 as well as others I have posted. In light of the obvious I just cant seem to understand not only why Jesus name baptism seems so confusing to some but why bother with the argument against it.
EDIT: you answered some of my post before I got it posted with your EDIT. Thanks.
|
I added another paragraph that you can take a look at.
But it seems you already missed my point.
Acts 10:48 says they baptized in the name of the Lord. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If
Acts 2:38 and
Acts 19:5 are both saying they baptized using the words "in the name of Jesus" then
Acts 10:48 is saying they baptized using the words "in the name of the Lord". If they actually said a title when the baptized in
Acts 10:48 instead of the name then I have proven that a title can be used in place of a name. Therefore what is the difference of Peter baptizing people in the title of Lord and someone today baptizing people in the titles of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost? Why can Peter baptize people with a title but no one today can?