born of water - Page 23

mfblume · #**221** 12-24-2014, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Originalist

Let me clarify. I'd say that normatively one would indeed invoke the name of Jesus when confronting a demon. But personally I would do so by informing him from the start that I am a disciple of Jesus Christ endowed with authority to cast out devils. After that there would be no need to repeat over and over "in the name of Jesus!" which can itself become vain repetition.

Cannot answer yes or no, can you?

mfblume · #**222** 12-24-2014, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Originalist

I was referring to the premise that we can only exercise the authority Christ has given us by vocalizing his name.

That was not my premise either. Why did you think it was?

good samaritan · #**223** 12-24-2014, 11:24 AM

Acts 3:6 Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee:In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk.. 7 And he took him by the right hand, and lifted him up:and immediately his feet and ankle bones received strength.

If originalist is trying to say that the name can be used without the authority I agree. For instance if someone is baptized in the name Jesus Ramirez, that isn't the Jesus we need for salvation. If he is saying that we are given authority without the name that is contrary to the Bible. Peter had more supernatural experience through God than anyone on this earth today, but yet he still vocalized Jesus name here in the scripture.

I think that originalist probably sees the importance of the name. It seems he is trying give a deeper philosophy then is necessary. We should call on his name everyday, but it is up to God where his authority is used. If we don't acknowledge his name we disgrace his person. Have you ever been referred to in a group acquaintances as a he or him when they know your name? To me if it is done repeatedly it is insulting. I have name for a reason so use it when you refer to me.

By using His name when you speak of Him you acknowledge Him. By calling on His name in baptism you are being obedient. Originalist would probably be getting less debate if he would have said the use of the name is in vain if we truly don't know Him and don't experience His work in our lives.The name is important because of who it belongs to.

mfblume · #**224** 12-24-2014, 11:30 AM

I thought it was a given that people who invoke the name and who have no faith are wasting their time.

Act 19:13 KJV Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth.

If simply saying the name would do things, then these men would not have failed in their "exorcism."

good samaritan · #**225** 12-24-2014, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

I thought it was a given that people who invoke the name and who have no faith are wasting their time.

Act 19:13 KJV Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth.

If simply saying the name would do things, then these men would not have failed in their "exorcism."

I think that is really originalists point. Sometimes you can go so far trying to explain your point of view that you can leave the simple truth.

mfblume · #**226** 12-24-2014, 11:39 AM

I believe that vocalizing the name in and of itself does nothing so much that if someone said "In the name of Jesus Christ" it would be meaningless if they had no faith in the issue. I spoke to people who had no faith when they were baptized in Jesus' name and did it due to pressure, and I told them they just got wet. The name has to be spoken, though not for the sake of sound waves, and it's useless without faith.

More to say, but some aren't answering my question.

Originalist · #**227** 12-24-2014, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

Cannot answer yes or no, can you?

People who play the "cannot answer yes or no" card often do so when they've been presented with an argument they do not want to consider.

It is a bully tactic.

mfblume · #**228** 12-24-2014, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Originalist

People who play the "cannot answer yes or no" card often do so when they've been presented with an argument they do not want to consider.

It is a bully tactic.

You really do assume too much. First my premise and now this. Whatever you want to believe. Facts are facts. You just can;t answer yes or no. It means your argument is shakey and you realize it to a degree.

Originalist · #**229** 12-24-2014, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by good samaritan

Acts 3:6 Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee:In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk.. 7 And he took him by the right hand, and lifted him up:and immediately his feet and ankle bones received strength.

If originalist is trying to say that the name can be used without the authority I agree. For instance if someone is baptized in the name Jesus Ramirez, that isn't the Jesus we need for salvation. If he is saying that we are given authority without the name that is contrary to the Bible. Peter had more supernatural experience through God than anyone on this earth today, but yet he still vocalized Jesus name here in the scripture.

I think that originalist probably sees the importance of the name. It seems he is trying give a deeper philosophy then is necessary. We should call on his name everyday, but it is up to God where his authority is used. If we don't acknowledge his name we disgrace his person. Have you ever been referred to in a group acquaintances as a he or him when they know your name? To me if it is done repeatedly it is insulting. I have name for a reason so use it when you refer to me.

By using His name when you speak of Him you acknowledge Him. By calling on His name in baptism you are being obedient. Originalist would probably be getting less debate if he would have said the use of the name is in vain if we truly don't know Him and don't experience His work in our lives.The name is important because of who it belongs to.

I can accept much of what you say here.

My biggest beefs are with people who, when trying to cast out a demon, scream "in the name of Jesus!" at the top of their lungs over and over and over like that is somehow going to intimidate the demon into leaving. That's not what constitutes using the authority of his name.

Secondly, concerning Jesus name baptism, people who believe that the blood of Jesus is somehow applied mysteriously to the sinner through the invoking of the name in baptism are in error. I'm not picking on Apostolics here. I know Trinitarians who believe the same thing happens when the sinner invokes (calls on) the name of Lord at repentance.

Originalist · #**230** 12-24-2014, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

You really do assume too much. First my premise and now this. Whatever you want to believe. Facts are facts. You just can;t answer yes or no. It means your argument is shakey and you realize it to a degree.

I'm not shaky at all. I'm deliberate and thoughtful in my responses because doctrine deserves such an approach.