Our Baptism Mode!!

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Sherri

I'll never understand this mindset! How can using the scriptures the Bible uses about baptism be a compromise? What's wrong with quoting what Jesus said Himself about baptism and then explaining how it was fulfilled by the apostles?

Don't try to understand.
Some folks are just paranoid of hearing any mention of the FS&HG words.
Why would you even want to quote the words of Jesus?
Besides, some folks want to take those words out of the Bible.
We don't believe them so they must be wrong and must not belong there.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Me thinks explaining what is being done is not the intent those I have known doing this(I don't know y'all) were muddying the waters trying somehow to have it both ways. Thus a compromise.

Now quoting scripture is considered mud ... who would think????

[Old Paths]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Me thinks explaining what is being done is not the intent those I have known doing this(I don't know y'all) were muddying the waters trying somehow to have it both ways. Thus a compromise.

Sorta like the preacher that screams about holiness, but NEVER names sin.

Wants to appease everyone and appear as conservative.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Old Paths

Sorta like the preacher that screams about holiness, but NEVER names sin.

Wants to appease everyone and appear as conservative.

[stmatthew]

Originally Posted by Sherri

I'll never understand this mindset! How can using the scriptures the Bible uses about baptism be a compromise? What's wrong with quoting what Jesus said Himself about baptism and then explaining how it was fulfilled by the apostles?

Why add F,S, & HG into it?? If the fulfillment is in Acts 2:38, why not go directly to the fulfillment. IMHO, it is only done to appease those that will not accept Jesus Name baptism in and of itself.

[stmatthew]

Originally Posted by Old Paths

Sorta like the preacher that screams about holiness, but NEVER names sin.

Wants to appease everyone and appear as conservative.

Elder,

I really didn't read your post prior to my posting the above!!

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Now quoting scripture is considered mud ... who would think????

Quoting scripture is not the problem but the REASON for doing this seems very transparent to me. To try to appease both groups without offending either. Why not just quote every verse in the Bible on baptism while baptizing them? I had a personal acquaintance that did this and his explanation was the same his members NEVER got rooted in Apostolic doctrine they were just as happy going to a Trinity church as a Oneness church. If you thinks it makes no difference then have at it. Some of us thinks it makes a difference.
NOWHERE in Acts or the Epistles is there a reference to the triune formula in baptism ONLY in Jesus Name.

[SDG]

Some would censor the officiator of a baptism from quoting scripture because it muddies their dogma ... oh boy.

[Sherri]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Me thinks explaining what is being done is not the intent those I have known doing this(I don't know y'all) were muddying the waters trying somehow to have it both ways. Thus a compromise.

Well, you're wrong about us, Elder. This is the way Eddie has always baptized, even all those years we were in UPC, because he feels like it is the most biblical way to do it. No one in UPC ever questioned it. We never did it to try to please anyone; no one even ever asked to be baptized any other way than in Jesus' name.

[Sherri]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

Why add F,S, & HG into it?? If the fulfillment is in Acts 2:38, why not go directly to the fulfillment. IMHO, it is only done to appease those that will not accept Jesus Name baptism in and of itself.

We didn't add this in, Jesus did.