Question?

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by ILG

And here is an interesting thing, you quoted that Paul was commanded to call upon the name of the Lord in HIS OWN baptism. I did that. I felt cleansed and justified even though the preacher said FSHG. But I myself did call on the name of Jesus! And the next preacher told me I had to get rebaptized because the preacher did the wrong thing. That was legalism.

That is an admirable thing, and because of Acts 22:16, I agree that between the two, the one immersed more so that the one immersing needs to call upon the name of the Lord Jesus. I teach it this way.

But I have no doubt that it also matters that the immerser call upon the name of the Lord, since they are commanded "whatsoever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus".

Can two walk together except be they agreed?

If a person is using a triune formula, thinking that Christ is God the Son, the second person in the Godhead, and they go baptizing invoking the titles, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit on account of that belief, but the soon to be immersed is not a Trinitarian, and understands Christ to not be what the immerser thinks/believes He is (i.e. not God the Son, but rather the Incarnation of God the Father), then why in a million years would the soon to be immersed ever agree to be so baptized (and vice versa, why would a Trinitarian minister ever agree to baptize someone with a triune formula knowing the one to be immersed didn't believe in the fundamental theology of God the one doing the immersing)?

The only way either would agree is if they both agreed that it didn't matter.