Quote:
Originally Posted by ILG
Jesus Himself said in the book of Matthew to be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. I wonder if Jesus was messed up about His theology when He said that. I mean, the NAME is supposed to be Jesus, right? So, if a pastor baptizes saying I baptize you in the NAME of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, after someone believes in that name, I would suppose he was baptizing in that name, right?
But, if someone wants to create an exclusive doctrine, they ignore that baptizing in the name is baptizing in the name, while saying that the name is Jesus and that name must be uttered for efficacy. I guess Jesus said those words to confuse people, so He could laugh when they got it wrong, according to some.
|
ILG,
I appreciate your post. Your "wink, wink" irony is well-taken.
I think the one thing that convinced me more than anything to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ is my belief that the book of Acts is historical and doctrinal in nature, providing the only documented narrative for the actions of the New Testament church.
I completely understand your comments about how you felt after your first baptism. Just a question; Do our feelings justify our walk with God? I'm only asking because I take your comment to mean that you discredit your Jesus' name baptism because of your feelings. If your are honest you will admit that there was no "wink, wink" by Jesus Christ. The apostles taught the teaching of washings (baptisms) for repentance. It wasn't until the NT that we see it more fully explained by Paul as a symbolic
burial with Christ.
Is it possible that there are more issues with your pastor than baptism? Maybe the way you received that doctrine was in the sense of conviction or demand...either case can be mishandled. It still doesn't change what is written.
"wink, wink"!
I'm just sayin'.
Threaded Mode
