...Combining Mathew 28:19 & Acts 2:38.....

[stmatthew]

Originally Posted by JTULLOCK

I agree there are many more offices to Jesus than just F,S,HG. But none of these are mentioned when commisioned to reach the world and baptize them. If someone wants to add the titles to it that does not add to or take away from what is being done here. The name of Jesus is being spoken over them that is the thing that matters. Is it a bad thing to add it so not to offend? I do not think so. I have never added the titles to a baptism. I do not see a problem with those that do add it.

Why should baptizing in the Name only be offensive??

Originally Posted by stmatthew

Why should baptizing in the Name only be offensive??

You probably think that scripture about whatsoever you do in word or deed do all in the name of Jesus is really important and means what it says, don't you?

And you probably think that baptism is salvific and that when the scripture declares that there is no other name under heaven given among men whereby you must be saved it is talking about Jesus.

Some people and their absolute faith in the sanctity and accuracy of the Word of God! I don't know what we are going to do with them.

[stmatthew]

Originally Posted by philjones

You probably think that scripture about whatsoever you do in word or deed do all in the name of Jesus is really important and means what it says, don't you?

And you probably think that baptism is salvific and that when the scripture declares that there is no other name under heaven given among men whereby you must be saved it is talking about Jesus.

Some people and their absolute faith in the sanctity and accuracy of the Word of God! I don't know what we are going to do with them.

What am I going to do with you?

[Pragmatist]

Originally Posted by philjones

Some people and their absolute faith in the sanctity and accuracy of the Word of God!

If people believe in the sanctity and accuracy of the Word of God, then why is using Matt. 28:19 in addition to Jesus name a problem?

If it wasn't in error for Jesus to say it, one shouldn't be in error to include it along with Jesus name.

[Jack Shephard]

Originally Posted by Pragmatist

If people believe in the sanctity and accuracy of the Word of God, then why is using Matt. 28:19 in addition to Jesus name a problem?

If it wasn't in error for Jesus to say it, one shouldn't be in error to include it along with Jesus name.

BINGO!!!! We have a winner!

Look guys, Phil and Matt, I believe the name is essential. There are different points of view about this. Matt asked is it offensive to baptixe in the name. Well it isn't. But at the expense of sound smart why should a title be offensive?

Phil, I agree that Jesus said 'in the name' that is important. But the why is it a big deal to add the titles? Does in counter-act the Jesus name part? No

Originally Posted by JTULLOCK

BINGO!!!! We have a winner!

Look guys, Phil and Matt, I believe the name is essential. There are different points of view about this. Matt asked is it offensive to baptixe in the name. Well it isn't. But at the expense of sound smart why should a title be offensive?

Phil, I agree that Jesus said 'in the name' that is important. But the why is it a big deal to add the titles? Does in counter-act the Jesus name part? No

It is all about motive. The sufficiency I find in the name and the revelation of the mighty God in Christ makes this a discussion that is moot. I know who Jesus is and find it offensive for a man with the revelation to move to such a formula when he is simply using it as a form of deceit or to hide the beauty of the revelation.

That is my opinion, warts and all and i certainly respect your right to view it differently.