Forward Conference 2010

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

compromise IMO

I've got more respect for someone who just baptizes in the titles than one who tries to make everyone happy.

I believe it to be undeniable that scripture is giving us the authority to baptize and we baptize in the name of, under the authority of God Almighty. However one says that, or if nothing is said at all, it is the act of baptism that is significant, not the recited words as someone is plunged.

I say, "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; In Jesus' Name", and I do it that way to call upon the fulness of the authority of God, not to make everyone happy.

[Jack Shephard]

Originally Posted by notofworks

I believe it to be undeniable that scripture is giving us the authority to baptize and we baptize in the name of, under the authority of God Almighty. However one says that, or if nothing is said at all, it is the act of baptism that is significant, not the recited words as someone is plunged.

I say, "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; In Jesus' Name", and I do it that way to call upon the fulness of the authority of God, not to make everyone happy.

You compromising son of a gun. You know if I were to baptize anyone it would be "....In the name Father, the Son of our God the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost our Comforter. May you walk in the Power of the HG all the days of your life" or some similar variation.

[BeenThinkin]

Originally Posted by notofworks

I believe it to be undeniable that scripture is giving us the authority to baptize and we baptize in the name of, under the authority of God Almighty. However one says that, or if nothing is said at all, it is the act of baptism that is significant, not the recited words as someone is plunged.

I say, "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; In Jesus' Name", and I do it that way to call upon the fulness of the authority of God, not to make everyone happy.

Been Thinkin