Quote:
Originally Posted by Pressing-On
No, let's look at both of them. It doesn't matter, in that instance, if Ananias is speaking or Paul. Paul, in my opinion, is a whole different story since he first rejected Jesus Christ's doctrine dragging people out of their homes, was holding Stephen's coat while he was being stoned, and just a fearful man to the Christians.
What matters is that they have made a confession of their faith. That is tantamount for the NT church - Do you believe on the name of Jesus? If not, then they will die in their sins.
I think you are taking the one passage too far to prove something you cannot.
|
The claim was made that it was not the baptizee (Paul) being instructed to call on the name of the Lord but was the baptizor (Ananias) who was to call on the name of the Lord. Who is doing what to whom in the passage is important, giving an illustration of the baptism process that Paul himself followed. You've not given your view on the language of the passage. Was it Ananias calling on the name of the Lord or was it Paul?
When we determine that, we'll move on to the eunuch. Why attempt to dismiss the passage without determining what is being taught in the passage?
Threaded Mode
