For those that left the UPC...

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by missourimary

Is it? You go on to say:

I didn't say "only." The primary purpose of the verse is not to teach how to baptize, and it is being used out of context to show otherwise. The purpose of the verse, in context, shows us how to live, not how to be baptized. So unless you live by saying "in the name of Jesus" with every breath and step, the verse cannot be used to prove anything about baptism. (See your first statement quoted above, and reanswer the question I followed it with.)

And I stated that the commentaries, of which I agree, define "word and deed" as also our application of Christian ordinances.

Your, "in the name of Jesus, for every breath and step" is a bit ridiculous to try and win an argument. No one here interprets the passage in that way. It is teaching that His name is important. That is the point.

Without faith in Jesus there is no authority in Him, I'm not sure why you state "you wouldn't be correct that it was not His name..." They used the right name, without faith, and found that without faith, even with the right name, there was no authority.

They used the name, but not in faith. To say "in the name of Jesus that Paul preaches" was not to invoke the authority of Paul, but to designate whose name, much the same as a person might have said "Nathaniel, son of Tholomew." (Nathaniel Bartholomew, "Bar" meaning "son of".) The disciples did much the same when they said "Jesus of Nazareth". In a time when there were no last names, some description of the person, affixed to their first name, helped designate who was being discussed. So the same name was still invoked, but not with faith.

They were "vagabond" Jews who had no authority to use His name. It had nothing to do with faith. They had not submitted their lives to God and had no authority to use His name. Big lesson to the readers.

"No other name" is a reference to Acts 4:12Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. Again, it is not the invoking of that name over the person that saves, but the faith of the believer in what Jesus has done for us.

It is both. You cannot have true faith without understanding that His name is also important and how powerful it is. If that wasn't true, the passage wouldn't begin with - "Neither is there salvation in any other, for there is none other name under heaven....."

This verse isn't discussing baptism either, but ok.

We are talking about His name and examples of it being used. If they are making "commands" toward the brethren "in His name", it only stands to reason when the Word says (Acts 2:38), "Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ...", that they are using His name.

But again, I have not said that nothing should be said over a candidate at baptism. All I am saying is that the words said are not as important as the response of the candidate to Jesus. (And that Acts 22:16 can't be used as a proof text for Jesus name baptism, but that's gotten lost amongst the ruffled feathers somewhere.)

My feathers aren't ruffled at all. I just don't agree with you. Too many passages wherein they used His name. I think the whole debate has been whether we use His name in baptism. I believe that we do and I do believe the words spoken are just as important as the response by the candidate. You can't have one without the other. It's like having the candidate and no water. It all works together.