Baptism, the simple version.

[Wansvic]

One more thought on this to consider.

If one hears the word, believes it, confesses his belief as did the Ethiopian eunuch consistent with Romans 10:9, repents or is repentant, the next step is to be baptized. And if it's done BY THE AUTHORITY OF GOD (in the name of), why must anything be said by the one doing the baptizing? That puts the oness on the baptizer and not the one being baptized who has already fulfilled his part of the bargain. Putting the oness on the baptizer is wrong. If he then says the wrong thing does that invalidate the baptism? That makes no sense. And surely, God knows why the person is being baptized. Maybe we look at this incorrectly by placing too much emphasis and responsibility on the baptizer. All he really needs to do after the new believer does his part is simply immerse the believer without having to say anything at all. God knows the heart and intent of the believer and why he is being baptized.

I just cannot overlook that no one was baptized any other way after Jesus resurrection. Jesus prophesied that repentance and remission of sin would be preached in His name to all nations beginning in Jerusalem. And the change did begin in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost when Peter said everyone was to be baptized in Jesus' name.

I appreciate your sharing your thoughts. However, I cannot waver from what scripture reveals. All detailed baptism records indicate the use of Jesus' name. (1 Cor. 1:15) And for that reason I am convinced it does matter how baptism is administered.

 

[Magenta]

Acts 10:43~ All the prophets testify about Him that everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins through His name.

 

[Wansvic]

This was already covered in the articles, but you have your biased agenda and only see and believe what you want to see and believe.

Your reply is, "This was already covered in the articles." It is not necessary to look at articles when the Bible speaks directly to the issue.

Please provide the scriptures of people being baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Thanks.

 

[DJT_47]

I just cannot overlook that no one was baptized any other way after Jesus resurrection. Jesus prophesied that repentance and remission of sin would be preached in His name to all nations beginning in Jerusalem. And the change did begin in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost when Peter said everyone was to be baptized in Jesus' name.

I appreciate your sharing your thoughts. However, I cannot waver from what scripture reveals. All detailed baptism records indicate the use of Jesus' name. (1 Cor. 1:15) And for that reason I am convinced it does matter how baptism is administered.

"The use of Jesus ' name": but what does that mean? Does it mean his name is spoken or does it mean it's by his authority? Once again, if the one about to be baptized has done his part, belief, faith, confess, repent, but the baptizer messes up on the wording spoken at the ceremony, does that invalidate the otherwise proper immersion?

 

[Wansvic]

Acts 10:43~ All the prophets testify about Him that everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins through His name.

Correct. Those who believe receive forgiveness of sins through His name. This occurs in water baptism as revealed in scripture: "Repent, and be baptized everyone of you IN THE NAME OF THE JESUS CHRIST for remission of sin..: Acts 2:38

 

[VARob]

"The use of Jesus ' name": but what does that mean? Does it mean his name is spoken or does it mean it's by his authority? Once again, if the one about to be baptized has done his part, belief, faith, confess, repent, but the baptizer messes up on the wording spoken at the ceremony, does that invalidate the otherwise proper immersion?

It's sad how Christians argue about almost EVERYTHING. You guys both staunchly believe water baptism is necessary for salvation, yet you argue about how it must be done in order to "count."

 

[DJT_47]

It's sad how Christians argue about almost EVERYTHING. You guys both staunchly believe water baptism is necessary for salvation, yet you argue about how it must be done in order to "count."

I agree with that. I do believe 10000% that baptism is absolutely required for salvation, as the scriptures teach, but maybe there is something wrong with putting the oness on the wrong party to get it accomplished. That's all I'm saying. And for sure as stated previously, Matthew 28:19 CANNOT be in conflict with Acts 2:38 as it appears to be, but can't be! So, there is definitely something wrong which is why I've suggested what I have. We may ALL be looking at it wrong, because the scriptures don't lie and don't conflict with one another.

 

[Magenta]

Correct. Those who believe receive forgiveness of sins through His name. This occurs in water baptism as revealed in scripture: "Repent, and be baptized everyone of you IN THE NAME OF THE JESUS CHRIST for remission of sin..: Acts 2:38

"Take one aspirin for headache." Right. It's because I already have a headache, not in order to give me one .

Ephesians 4:5-6

 

[Magenta]

Ephesians 2:8-9
=

 

[Wansvic]

"The use of Jesus ' name": but what does that mean? Does it mean his name is spoken or does it mean it's by his authority? Once again, if the one about to be baptized has done his part, belief, faith, confess, repent, but the baptizer messes up on the wording spoken at the ceremony, does that invalidate the otherwise proper immersion?

The bible says, "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. (Acts 4:12)

Am I to understand that you do not think it necessary to verbalize the name of the Lord Jesus in making requests through prayer? "And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it. (John 14:13-14) Requests for healing are to be made in Jesus' name; "Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise him up." (James 5:14-16) What about Peter, did he not verbalize the actual name of Jesus Acts 3:6? "Peter said, "Silver and gold have I none, but what I have, that I give you. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, get up and walk!" And what about casting out demons? Scripture reveals demons are cast out by commanding they do so in the name of Jesus. (Mark 16:17-18, Acts 19:13)

I find it interesting that no one objects to the actual use of Jesus' name except when it comes to water baptism. That alone should raise a flag of warning. Consider why this is so.

“And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye.
For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard." Acts 4:18-20

 

[Wansvic]

"Take one aspirin for headache." Right. It's because I already have a headache, not in order to give me one .

Ephesians 4:5-6

Nice response. Just sharing scripture.

 

[Magenta]

Mark 7:13-15

 

[Wansvic]

It's sad how Christians argue about almost EVERYTHING. You guys both staunchly believe water baptism is necessary for salvation, yet you argue about how it must be done in order to "count."

Arguing? No, I don't see it as arguing. Planting seeds and watering seeds is what we are commanded to do. And God is the one that gives the increase. Jesus said those who seek will find truth. We are all on a journey. The enemy would love to see each of us just keep silent. I believe for the most part people share what they see and have personally experienced out of love for one another.

 

[DJT_47]

The bible says, "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. (Acts 4:12)

Am I to understand that you do not think it necessary to verbalize the name of the Lord Jesus in making requests through prayer? "And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it. (John 14:13-14) Requests for healing are to be made in Jesus' name; "Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise him up." (James 5:14-16) What about Peter, did he not verbalize the actual name of Jesus Acts 3:6? "Peter said, "Silver and gold have I none, but what I have, that I give you. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, get up and walk!" And what about casting out demons? Scripture reveals demons are cast out by commanding they do so in the name of Jesus. (Mark 16:17-18, Acts 19:13)

I find it interesting that no one objects to the actual use of Jesus' name except when it comes to water baptism. That alone should raise a flag of warning. Consider why this is so.

“And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye.
For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard." Acts 4:18-20

I understand all that. But how are the 2 scriptures resolved? And what's important at the immersion of a new believer who has done everything he/she was required to do, and all that remains necessary is immersion for the forgiveness of sins, to receive the Holy Ghost so it dwells in you, and be added to the body of Christ? Does it all, the entirety of
new believer’s eternal soul, fate, and ultimate eternsl destination, rest upon what the baptizer does or doesn't do correctly? The Ethiopian eunuch who knew nothing at all about the Lord, simply believed what Philip said, confessed his belief, and was baptized. The new believer isn't expected to know much other than what was just stated, not the nuances as we've been discussing, so, the oness can't fall on the baptizer, he simply needs to do his part and immerse the individual. God knows why and God knows the hearts of men including that of the new believer that knows nothing. Why must more be said? Why has it become a ceremony with the importance of exact words or phrases being the emphasis and necessary, which if violated, then nullifies the event? If Matt 28:19 is used, or Acts 2:38 is used, or if nothing is said at all, would it matter upon immersion after the believer has done all prerequisites? Would he be saved or not upon immersion? And why would it matter what the one immersing does or says or doesn't say? Something is wrong if salvation is contingent upon the baptizer vs the one being baptized. Im not sure what the resolution is and simply thinking out loud about this, but I for sure don't believe that Matt 28:19 conflicts with Acts 2:38. It can't, and if it appears that it does, it's because of how we are looking at it, and not the scriptures themselves conflicting.

 

[mailmandan]

Your reply is, "This was already covered in the articles." It is not necessary to look at articles when the Bible speaks directly to the issue.

Please provide the scriptures of people being baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Thanks.

The articles cover the scriptures from the Bible and puts them into perspective that baptizing in Jesus’ name is to baptize in the authority of Jesus. To baptize in Jesus' name is not meant as a legalistic prescription formula for salvation as you teach.

 

[DJT_47]

The bible says, "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. (Acts 4:12)

Am I to understand that you do not think it necessary to verbalize the name of the Lord Jesus in making requests through prayer? "And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it. (John 14:13-14) Requests for healing are to be made in Jesus' name; "Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise him up." (James 5:14-16) What about Peter, did he not verbalize the actual name of Jesus Acts 3:6? "Peter said, "Silver and gold have I none, but what I have, that I give you. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, get up and walk!" And what about casting out demons? Scripture reveals demons are cast out by commanding they do so in the name of Jesus. (Mark 16:17-18, Acts 19:13)

I find it interesting that no one objects to the actual use of Jesus' name except when it comes to water baptism. That alone should raise a flag of warning. Consider why this is so.

“And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye.
For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard." Acts 4:18-20

Just one more thing relative to the point I've been trying to make and my concern over this issue and then I think I'll bow out to ponder this more.

If I said "I'm seizing this in the name of the crown". What does this mean?

It's no different than baptizing "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost". It's by their authority.

 

[JBTN]

Correct. Those who believe receive forgiveness of sins through His name. This occurs in water baptism as revealed in scripture: "Repent, and be baptized everyone of you IN THE NAME OF THE JESUS CHRIST for remission of sin..: Acts 2:38

If you look at Acts 2:38 in Greek the word in from “in the name of” is actually not the word for in. It is epi which means on. So this seems to actually be “on the authority”. So, be immersed, every one of you, on the authority of Jesus Christ into the forgiveness of the sins of you.

“Kefa answered them, “Turn from sin, return to God, and each of you be immersed on the authority of Yeshua the Messiah into forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Ruach HaKodesh!”
‭‭Acts of Emissaries of Yeshua (Act)‬ ‭2‬:‭38‬ ‭CJB‬‬
https://bible.com/bible/1275/act.2.38.CJB

So its not actually a water immersion its an immersion into forgiveness of sins. Which is the same as saying immersion into Christ.

“In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace,”
‭‭Ephesians‬ ‭1‬:‭7‬ ‭ESV‬‬
https://bible.com/bible/59/eph.1.7.ESV

We see how it happens here.

“In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit,”
‭‭Ephesians‬ ‭1‬:‭13‬ ‭ESV‬‬
https://bible.com/bible/59/eph.1.13.ESV

We are sealed or immersed in him by the Holy Spirit when we believe. This allows this verse to be true.

“Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him.”
‭‭1 John‬ ‭5‬:‭1‬ ‭ESV‬‬
https://bible.com/bible/59/1jn.5.1.ESV

If water baptism is a requirement, then nobody has been born of god until they are baptized. That is not what 1 John 5:1 says.

 

[Nehemiah6]

Planting seeds and watering seeds is what we are commanded to do.

Sowing seeds of spiritual confusion is definitely not what God had in mind. So who is behind spiritual confusion?

 

[awelight]

You are not understanding the thief on the cross issue. Below is the complete text of one of my threads on this subject. Hope this clarifies it for you.

Repost

I continually encounter people trying to justify that baptism is not an absolute necessity for one's salvation by use (erroneously) of the thief on the cross as justification, as he was not baptized but yet saved by the Lord, which is true! BUT, the error in this is the lack of understanding of the scriptures. You must read and understand Hebrews 9:15-17 which clarifies why the thief on the cross was saved by Jesus without being baptized. Christ was still alive when this occurred meaning it was done while the old testament or covenant was still in effect; the new testament had not yet been established because Christ had not yet died. And since the Lord was still alive no one could possibly be baptized into Christ under NT salvation criteria. Baptism did not become a requirement as part of salvation until the new testament began which was after the death of Christ. Jesus forgave the thief on the cross no different than he forgave others during his earthly ministry, such as the woman caught in the act of adultery as recorded in John 8. Baptism should not even be an issue when discussing the thief on the cross, but unfortunately always is, but in error.

Hebrews 9:15-17

15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.

17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

I think I see where you are trying to go with the Ref. in Hebrews 9 - but I will have to say this is stretching things a bit far. The subject of Baptism is not in view in this chapter. The comparison is the shed blood of beasts, over and against the shed blood of Christ. Thus, Christ's redemptive work is in view and His death (then Resurrection), established His mediatorial authority over the now activated "New Covenant or New will".

His death and resurrection did alter the methodology of Baptism - from John's Baptism to being Baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit but it should be remembered that John was already Baptizing. While John's Baptism was upon evidence of Repentance of sins - Baptism - nevertheless, was taking place. John the Baptizer was unique. He had one foot in the Old Testament dispensation and the other in the New Testament dispensation but there is no record of a Baptismal ordinance being issued in the Old Testament era.

This leads us to an interesting question then... Why did John Baptize and where did he get his authority to do so? We are left with two possible answers but neither are definitive. 1.) John had a revelation from God to do so and it was not recorded in Scripture. 2.) John got the idea as a way to pave the way for another.

We do know that some of those that were Baptized by John were later Baptized in the name of Jesus Christ:

Act 19:3 And he said, Into what then were ye baptized? And they said, Into John's baptism.
Act 19:4 And Paul said, John baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people that they should believe on him that should come after him, that is, on Jesus.
Act 19:5 And when they heard this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.

But John Baptized many, many people. Should we then conclude, that they were not saved if they were not Baptized in the name of Jesus our Lord? Of course they were saved because Salvation worked the same for the OT Saints as it does for us today. We have the ordinance of Baptism - they did not. They had the sacrifice of animals - we do not. BUT God's Grace is God's Grace.

The misunderstanding of the purpose of Baptism and it's role in Salvation, is brought about by a misunderstanding of the following:

1.) God's Omnipotence.
2.) God's Sovereignty in His Plan of Salvation.
3.) God's Sovereignty in His actions in Salvation.

A proper understanding of these MUST be had before one can understand the rest. Being Baptized and not being a true believer will not bring about salvation - Just as, being a true believer and not having the opportunity to be Baptized will not forfeit one's salvation but if the opportunity presents itself, the true believer should be Baptized.

 

[awelight]

Thnx as well. The only thing I can say that I know to be true is that scripture does not contradict itself nor does one supercede another making the other wrong and void. Scripture must and does agree with itself. That's why I concluded as I did. One can't be right and the other wrong. Unfortunately, you see a lot of this kind of thinking which is prevalent on this and other similar forums wherein someone will pick one scripture over another so as to make it sound like scripture is contradictory. People will latch on to a scripture that mentions only belief, or only faith relative to salvation and ignor other scriptures, erroneously basing their belief structure on that one scripture alone that they chose. We see it all the time. So, Matthew 28:19 can't be wrong and Acts 2:38 right, or vice versa. They both have to be correct.

I agree, all Scripture most harmonize in order to see the Truth. However, personal bias often gets in the way of that harmony.

I believe in an earlier post, you said that one is Baptized and then receives the Holy Spirit. This agrees with Acts 2:38:

And Peter said unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Peter is saying: First Repent - then be Baptized - then in the future you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. However, in the interest of Biblical Harmony - one must note that this verse does not denote a particular order of events. On other occasions, they had already received the gifts of the Holy Spirit before they were Baptized:

Acts 10:44-48 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Spirit fell on all them that heard the word. 45 And they of the circumcision that believed were amazed, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, 47 Can any man forbid the water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit as well as we? 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Therefore, we can conclude, that the Holy Spirit may come upon a believer at anytime because the Holy Spirit is Sovereign in His work and not at the whim of mankind. He does work independent of the agency of man or He may work in harmony with the agency of man.

It must be noted here - That this falling/receiving of the Holy Spirit - in both Acts 2:38 and Acts 10:44 is the bestowal of gifts upon the believers of the early Church and is the fulfillment of Jesus' promise in Acts 1:5 & 8. However, this is not the "New Birth" or "Being born from above" of John 3:3-10.