Re-Examining Baptism in the Name of Jesus Part 5

In Part Five (5) of our examination of the "no-formula" doctrine as taught by Don McClain of the "church of Christ" denomination, we look at another scholar that Don has appealed to, to try to substantiate his position.

Don quotes from Marvin Vincent, Word Studies, on the phrase "in the name of" (eis to onoma) as used in Matthew 28:19. This actually a very lengthy quote and Don broke it down over two different charts, but the very intersting thing here is Don's use of "elipses" (...). Notice careful Don's use of elipses (...) between the word "Lord" and "The name." An elipses (...) indicates to the reader that something has been skipped in the quote. Sometimes the elipses (...) isn't realtive to the discussion, but then there are times that elipses (...) are used simply because the person doesn't want that particular information to be made available to the audience. This way the quote is seen as validating the preacher's (in this case Don's) position.

BEWARE OF DON'S USE OF ELIPSES!!!

When the careful student goes back and verfies the quotes used by Don McClain, you will find that some very important information and comments have been skipped!!

When we look at the comments that Don McClain skipped, we see (once again) that the scholars DO NOT agree with Don's "no-formula" doctrine. Dr. Marvin Vincent very much believed in a "baptismal formula" and Don McClain SKIPPED this information in his presentation to the W. 65th Street "church of Christ"!! Notice that Dr. Vincent DID NOT say that the "name" isn't a "designation," rather he said "The name is not the MERE designation..." meaning that the "name" is a "designation," but not a designation only. Thus, Marvin Vincent did believe in a "baptismal formula" and again, the scholars that Don McClain attempts to use to prove his position have actually proven his position to be false!

I ask the question, "Why did Don skip these important comments of Marvin Vincent, seeing as how he HAD to have know they were there?" The answer is because Don knew that the comments did not support his false view, and in order to make Dr. Vincent look as if he supported the "no-formula" doctrine, Don had to misrepresent Dr. Vincent's comments, and take him out of context.

It is a sure sign of a false doctrine, when they skip such important information as this!!

Jason L. Weatherly