Let's talk about Baptism.

[seekerman]

Maybe this point has been brought up before but I haven't seen it if it has.

What does "baptism in Jesus name" mean anyway? Is that teaching that one's salvation hinges on the utterance and performance of another man? WHOSE confession is essential here? The person being baptized or the one doing the baptizing?

Teaching that a preacher, or a priest, must perform some sort of ritual on your behalf or you're not a child of God and not forgiven, is placing that preacher, or priest, and their performance directly between the individual and God. It's teaching that another man's performance must be added to Jesus' finished work in order to 'apply' Jesus to an individual.

This simply isn't true. I challenge anyone to find a single scripture teaching that one's salvation hinges on the baptismal ritual performance of another man. It's not there.

[UltraCon]

Originally Posted by seekerman

Maybe this point has been brought up before but I haven't seen it if it has.

What does "baptism in Jesus name" mean anyway? Is that teaching that one's salvation hinges on the utterance and performance of another man? WHO'S confession is essential here? The person being baptized or the one doing the baptizing?

Teaching that a preacher, or a priest, must perform some sort of ritual on your behalf or you're not a child of God and not forgiven, is placing that preacher, or priest, and their performance directly between the individual and God. It's teaching that another man's performance must be added to Jesus' finished work in order to 'apply' Jesus to an individual.

This simply isn't true. I challenge anyone to find a single scripture teaching that one's salvation hinges on the baptismal ritual performance of another man. It's not there.

If it didn't matter, Paul wouldn't have rebaptized the disciples of John in Jesus Name.

Because both baptism's were done by immersion in water.

Yes the baptizee must believe on Jesus, OBVIOUSLY. But the Baptizer must also Say in Jesus Name! It matters the name said over you.

Why else did Jesus command THEM to baptize in the name.... It mattered how they baptized the person....

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by UltraCon

If it didn't matter, Paul wouldn't have rebaptized the disciples of John in Jesus Name.

Because both baptism's were done by immersion in water.

Yes the baptizee must believe on Jesus, OBVIOUSLY. But the Baptizer must also Say in Jesus Name! It matters the name said over you.

Why else did Jesus command THEM to baptize in the name.... It mattered how they baptized the person....

Where does the bible say the baptizer must say in Jesus Name? Where the bible is silent let us be silent also.

[UltraCon]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Where does the bible say the baptizer must say in Jesus Name? Where the bible is silent let us be silent also.

He instructed the dicsples on it in Matthew 28:19.

Tell me the name of the Father, Son, & Holy Ghost?
JESUS! He commanded them to baptize in that name....

Now even your common sense should come into play here

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by UltraCon

If it didn't matter, Paul wouldn't have rebaptized the disciples of John in Jesus Name.

Because both baptism's were done by immersion in water.

Yes the baptizee must believe on Jesus, OBVIOUSLY. But the Baptizer must also Say in Jesus Name! It matters the name said over you.

Why else did Jesus command THEM to baptize in the name.... It mattered how they baptized the person....

You're saying there's no forgiveness of sins without another man performing 'correctly', other than Jesus, on your behalf?

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by UltraCon

If it didn't matter, Paul wouldn't have rebaptized the disciples of John in Jesus Name.

Because both baptism's were done by immersion in water.

Yes the baptizee must believe on Jesus, OBVIOUSLY. But the Baptizer must also Say in Jesus Name! It matters the name said over you.

Why else did Jesus command THEM to baptize in the name.... It mattered how they baptized the person....

I think we are comparing apples in oranges here.

These people had apparently not even heard the Gospel.

Upon hearing, they were convinced of their need to be baptized according to the Gospel they had received.

They weren't rebaptized because they had "flawed faith" in Jesus Christ.

They were rebaptized because they're faith was in God, sealed by an Old Testament ritual, contrary to the true Gospel by which we are now saved.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by UltraCon

If it didn't matter, Paul wouldn't have rebaptized the disciples of John in Jesus Name.

Because both baptism's were done by immersion in water.

Yes the baptizee must believe on Jesus, OBVIOUSLY. But the Baptizer must also Say in Jesus Name! It matters the name said over you.

Why else did Jesus command THEM to baptize in the name.... It mattered how they baptized the person....

What if the one doing the baptism is mute. Would that invalidate the baptism?

The gist of your "argument" seems to be that the most important point about water baptism is what the preacher (or whoever is doing it) says. Why is that? What Scripture can you give to support this required liturgy?

What if the preacher read Luke 24:44-48, and then turned to the gathered assembly and said, "...And that is what we are doing now!" And he then baptized a convert without saying another word? He's obviously doing the baptisms in Jesus name and under the authority given to believers by the NT. That's what doing something "in Jesus' name" means, not running around and saying "Gee-sus" in every breath. That's almost a violation of the 2nd Commandment.

Why do you propose a magical Neo-Egyptian liturgy where the officiant (like the priestess Isis of old) knew the "sacred name" and could deliver people from death by invoking that name?