Baptism in Jesus’ name, Trinitarian style.

[tabibito]

You reject a whole swathe of scripture in favour of your own wrested reading of Acts and then have the hide to claim that others are apostate. Way past time you should repent.
EOF

[Dave L]

You reject a whole swathe of scripture in favour of your own wrested reading of Acts and then have the hide to claim that others are apostate. Way past time you should repent.
EOF

You don't know what Acts says.

[Dave L]

That is true.




Really? Where does that story come from?

If you read about Stephen's martyrdom, it is part of the situation.

[Dave L]

No. It really isn't. You just need to pretend it is to continue with your contradictory claims.

Why all the blather yet so far, you cannot refute with scripture one thing I say?

[Thoughtful Monk]

Why does the exact wording even matter? Stop straining gnats.

When you're arguing over exact wording, I think it's a sign that Dave L may be a legalist.

[Dave L]

When you're arguing over exact wording, I think it's a sign that Dave L may be a legalist.

It's the difference between truth and lies.

[rogue06]

Why all the blather yet so far, you cannot refute with scripture one thing I say?

You mean like posts #2, #14, and #30?

Wouldn't Jesus' instructions in Acts 8:16 also be the "scriptural method"?

Unless Acts 8:16 has been removed from the Bible you are clearly incorrect.

They were baptizing in Jesus' name "because the Holy Spirit had not yet come on any of them" yet. Afterwards...

[rogue06]

When you're arguing over exact wording, I think it's a sign that Dave L may be a legalist.

Wondering about KJV Onlyist as well

[Dave L]

Wondering about KJV Onlyist as well

KJV is where my memory verses come from. I can put my finger on a passage by using it. But I also use the NASB 1977. I have rare bibles too that most are unaware of.

[Dave L]

You mean like posts #2, #14, and #30?

You are way off in your understanding of this matter. The above proves it.

[Thoughtful Monk]

Wondering about KJV Onlyist as well

Maybe since KJV Only is a manifestation of legalism. Even though he quotes the KJV a lot, he doesn't come across to me as a KJV Only advocate.

[Cow Poke]

Maybe since KJV Only is a manifestation of legalism. Even though he quotes the KJV a lot, he doesn't come across to me as a KJV Only advocate.

All of my scripture memory is in KJV just because that's the way I grew up, but I prefer the NASB95 or ESV.

[Dave L]

Maybe since KJV Only is a manifestation of legalism. Even though he quotes the KJV a lot, he doesn't come across to me as a KJV Only advocate.

I use many bibles. But I'm older now and my lifelong memory verse collection is from the KJV. I have probably every translation you can think of, and then some $$$ out of print. It's not what it says, it's what it means. This is what trips up many.

[Sparko]

What difference does it make? They were baptized in Jesus' name, the only scriptural method.

Jesus himself said to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit - Matthew 28:19. So if someone is just baptized in Jesus' name then they left out two persons of the Trinity, eh?

[Dave L]

Jesus himself said to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. So if someone is just baptized in Jesus' name then they left out two persons of the Trinity, eh?

What you are missing is, Jesus Christ is the name of the trinity. The Apostles got it right. I can prove this if needed from the Old Testament.