This blog continues my examination of the “no-formula” doctrine as taught recently by Don McClain, evangelist for the "church of Christ" denomination in Little Rock, AR. As mentioned in the previous blog, Don has consistently taught follow-up lessons on the Godhead and Baptismal Formula issues after public debates in the last three years. Apparently Don feels there is some “patching up” that needs to be done after the debates.
Don began his teaching of the “no-formula” doctrine by presenting a chart that has been used in three debates now. The chart breaks down the definition of the word “name” into four (4) uses: (1) Designation, (2) Reputation, (3) Authority, and (4) Person. From this, Don then gets to play word games, and decides which definition of “name” best fits a particular passage of Scripture. All of this is done in an attempt to circumvent orally invoking the name of Jesus in water baptism. It is amazing (as will be seen in further blogs) that in Matthew 28:19, in relation to baptism, Don says “name” refers to a “relationship” or “union,” but when you get to Acts 2:38 “name” refers to “authority.” It seems that Don can make “name” mean anything he wants to in any particular passage – EXCEPT NAME!! These "no-formula" preachers make up ever excuse for orally invoking something during baptism, except calling it a "baptismal formula" or "invocation." This is the faulty premise of the “no-formula” doctrine.
In looking at Don’s chart, first and foremost, the word “name” in Colossians DOES NOT refer to “authority” (this will be dealt with thoroughly in a later blog). Secondly, you cannot dissect the “Person” from their “Designation.” Their “designation” is who the “person” is!! You cannot refer to the “PERSON” of Jason Weatherly without also giving reference to my “NAME” or “DESIGNATION.” Neither can you make reference to the “NAME” of someone without including their “PERSON.” So, to try to apply the meaning of “PERSON” to the word “name” without including their “DESIGNATION” is absolutely false.
The same is true with “REPUTATION.” You cannot separate a “reputation” from either the “PERSON” or their “NAME” (“designation”). With a “reputation,” someone may not know you “PERSONally” but they know your “NAME” (designation), because the reputation depends on both the “person” and their “name” (designation).
To illustrate the faulty reasoning behind dissecting the meaning of “name,” notice that Don say that “name” in Acts 4:12, “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved” refers to “PERSON” as if “DESIGNATION” doesn’t have relevance in the passage. However, simply a quick examination of the context of Acts chapter 4 shows “name” refers to both the “designation” and the “person.” You CANNOT separate one from the other!
The entire discourse of Peter in Acts chapter four is built upon the foundation of events found in Acts chapter 3
Acts 3: 1 Now Peter and John went up together into the temple at the hour of prayer, being the ninth hour.
2 And a certain man lame from his mother’s womb was carried, whom they laid daily at the gate of the temple which is called Beautiful, to ask alms of them that entered into the temple;
3 Who seeing Peter and John about to go into the temple asked an alms.
4 And Peter, fastening his eyes upon him with John, said, Look on us.
5 And he gave heed unto them, expecting to receive something of them.
6 Then Peter SAID, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth
The miracle in Acts chapter 3 took place by means of the ORAL INVOCATION of the name of Jesus! Peter SAID, “In the name of Jesus Christ…” Every statement made concerning this event must be prefaced upon the fact that Peter orally invoked the name of Jesus! Thus when Peter said, “And his name through faith in his name hath made this man strong, whom ye see and know: yea, the faith which is by him hath given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all” (Acts ); this has reference to the oral invocation of the name in performing the miracle.
Then in Acts chapter 4, the Jewish leaders of the temple arrested Peter and John, and asked them “By what power, or by what name, have ye done this?” (Acts 4:7). Jews were familiar with an oral invocation of a “name” in performing miracles. Jewish exorcists were known for casting out demons by orally invoking the name “Solomon.” cf. Matthew 12:27.
This question, “By what power or name, have you done this?” is based upon the foundation of the oral invocation of the name of Jesus in healing the lame man. Peter then stood up and declared to the Jewish council, “Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that in (en) the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole” (Acts 4:10). Again, the phrase “by” or “in the name of Jesus Christ” points back to the ORAL INVOCATION of the name of Jesus in Acts 3:6, but not “just” to the invocation of the name because it was the “person” of Jesus (“by him”) who was the source of the miracle. So Acts , “no other name” is the answer to the question of “by what name, have you done this?” and refers to BOTH the “person” and the “name” (designation) of Jesus! You CANNOT separate one from the other as Don McClain has tried to do.
The statement that there is no other name under heaven whereby we must be saved is built upon the foundation of the oral invocation of the name of Jesus in Acts 3:6.
Jason L. Weatherly
No comments:
Post a Comment