If you want to think of the Lord Jesus as Metaphorical in the context of His blood, that's my guess.
The Error is Baptism in Jesus name only for salvation
- Thread starter CS1
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
If you want to think of the Lord Jesus as Metaphorical in the context of His blood, that's my guess.
It is. Trolls love this stuff, and I get to eat popcornI'm sorry but this thread is kind of funny with the back and forth!
Absolutely.
As Greek scholar AT Robertson stated: This phrase is the subject of endless controversy as men look at it from the standpoint of sacramental or of evangelical theology... Change of number from plural to singular and of person from second to third. This change marks a break in the thought here that the English translation does not preserve.
The first thing to do is make a radical and complete change of heart and life. Then let each one be baptized after this change has taken place, and the act of baptism be performed “in the name of Jesus Christ” (εν τωι ονοματι Ιησου Χριστου — en tōi onomati Iēsou Christou). So I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received.
Acts 2:38 (KJV) - Robertson's Word Pictures (NT)
On the surface it may sound like it but after a closer look we see otherwise. In Acts 2:38, "for the remission of sins" does not refer back to both clauses, "you all repent" and "each one of you be baptized," but refers only to the first. Peter is saying "repent unto the remission of your sins," the same as in Acts 3:19. The clause "each one of you be baptized" is parenthetical. This is exactly what Acts 3:19 teaches except that Peter omits the parenthesis.
*Also compare the fact that these Gentiles in Acts 10:45 received the gift of the Holy Spirit (compare with Acts 2:38 - the gift of the Holy Spirit) and this was BEFORE water baptism. (Acts 10:47)
In Acts 10:43 we read ..whoever believes in Him receives remission of sins. Again, these Gentiles received the gift of the Holy Spirit - Acts 10:45 - when they believed on the Lord Jesus Christ - Acts 11:17 - (compare with Acts 16:31 - Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved) BEFORE water baptism - Acts 10:47. This is referred to as repentance unto life - Acts 11:18.
*So, the only logical conclusion when properly harmonizing scripture with scripture is that faith in Jesus Christ "implied in genuine repentance" (rather than water baptism) brings the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 13:38,39; 15:7-9; 16:31; 26:18). *Perfect Harmony*
These Gentiles in Acts 10 had already believed, received the gift of the Holy Spirit, spoke in tongues (spiritual gift that is ONLY for the body of Christ - 1 Corinthians 12) and were saved BEFORE water baptism. The truth here is crystal clear.
These Gentiles speaking in tongues was a confirmation to the Jewish believers that God had accepted these Gentiles into the body of Christ.
There certainly is remission of sins in Acts 10:43 - Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives remission of sins.
Absolutely.
As Greek scholar AT Robertson stated: This phrase is the subject of endless controversy as men look at it from the standpoint of sacramental or of evangelical theology... Change of number from plural to singular and of person from second to third. This change marks a break in the thought here that the English translation does not preserve.
The first thing to do is make a radical and complete change of heart and life. Then let each one be baptized after this change has taken place, and the act of baptism be performed “in the name of Jesus Christ” (εν τωι ονοματι Ιησου Χριστου — en tōi onomati Iēsou Christou). So I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received.
Acts 2:38 (KJV) - Robertson's Word Pictures (NT)
On the surface it may sound like it but after a closer look we see otherwise. In Acts 2:38, "for the remission of sins" does not refer back to both clauses, "you all repent" and "each one of you be baptized," but refers only to the first. Peter is saying "repent unto the remission of your sins," the same as in Acts 3:19. The clause "each one of you be baptized" is parenthetical. This is exactly what Acts 3:19 teaches except that Peter omits the parenthesis.
*Also compare the fact that these Gentiles in Acts 10:45 received the gift of the Holy Spirit (compare with Acts 2:38 - the gift of the Holy Spirit) and this was BEFORE water baptism. (Acts 10:47)
In Acts 10:43 we read ..whoever believes in Him receives remission of sins. Again, these Gentiles received the gift of the Holy Spirit - Acts 10:45 - when they believed on the Lord Jesus Christ - Acts 11:17 - (compare with Acts 16:31 - Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved) BEFORE water baptism - Acts 10:47. This is referred to as repentance unto life - Acts 11:18.
*So, the only logical conclusion when properly harmonizing scripture with scripture is that faith in Jesus Christ "implied in genuine repentance" (rather than water baptism) brings the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 13:38,39; 15:7-9; 16:31; 26:18). *Perfect Harmony*
These Gentiles in Acts 10 had already believed, received the gift of the Holy Spirit, spoke in tongues (spiritual gift that is ONLY for the body of Christ - 1 Corinthians 12) and were saved BEFORE water baptism. The truth here is crystal clear.
These Gentiles speaking in tongues was a confirmation to the Jewish believers that God had accepted these Gentiles into the body of Christ.
There certainly is remission of sins in Acts 10:43 - Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives remission of sins.
Very, very interesting.
I have one qestion. In the context of the early Church and its founding, it was very much new in Acts 2. Can we hold to one verse as a doctrinal foundation when the Holy Spirit was still shaping the early church?
The new Church (body of Christ) was mostly Jews. Gentiles had not yet come to the saving knowledge of Christ until approximately 33 AD to 36 AD.
The church is still learning and growing. So much was still underdeveloped. We do not see the same language of Peter after Acts, chapter 2. In fact, He was admonished by the Lord to accept Gentiles.
We know from Church History that Peter said to baptize in the Name of the Lord as a Protest to the rulers who commanded them not to teach in that name or in the Authority of Jesus of Nazareth.
Totally agree with you. This is such a useless debate if people just behaved as they did in the early church.Also did you notice how enthusiastic they all were about being baptized? They all had a good attitude going into to it and did it as soon as they could! I bet you the thief on the cross would have gotten baptized too if he had the opportunity.
Also Jesus Himself didn't have to be baptized but He did it anyway. And it must have meant so much for God the Father and the Holy Spirit for them to show up at His baptism!
Salvation issue aside, if it meant a lot to God for Jesus to be baptized, we should do it too.
When Philip talks to the ethiopian eunuch, he believes Jesus is the son of God and is baptized immediately. Same with with the jailer that Paul and Silas talk with and Cornelius was baptized immediately too, I cannot think of a single example in the Bible where someone isn't baptized immediately. What the modern churches are doing is so unbiblical when they wait it out for weeks or months and people get stage fright and many are left unbaptized because of this.
To stay on topic id say this debate about Jesus name vs Father, Son and Holy Ghost baptism is just bickering over nothing. Trying to get the precise formula right and get people rebaptized for no reason. The main idea is the immersion in water, not the precise list of words said.
If you really wanna be autistic about it, I could tell someone who has been baptized in the name of Jesus Christ that he needs to be rebaptized into the name of the LORD Jesus Christ. Cause even in the book of Acts the formula isnt exact, and its not supposed to be because Luke is simply using the name as in authority, these people got baptized in the authority of Jesus, He authorized that baptism. Acts for baptizees and Matthew 28:19-20 to baptizers.
Such a bold face lie-one you will be held accountable for spreading...
For the record! The Apostle Peter, who was given the keyS of the kingdom by Jesus Himself, presented the requirement to be baptized in the name of Jesus for remission of sin at Pentecost. Something Jesus prophesied would occur then, and afterward be carried into all nations. (Luke 24:47, Acts2:38-42, 8:8-12, 10:43, 47-48, 19:1-7, 22:16) This happened well before RELIGIOUS leaders demanded Jesus' disciples stop teaching and preaching in the name of Jesus. (Acts 4:1-18)
"And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus."
I say to you as Peter and John told the Religious Leaders of their day, "Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, JUDGE YE!" Acts 4:19
I am the one who started this thread, and I agree with you in part.
Useless? Not so fast. Telling people they are not saved because they were not baptized inJesus' name only and that their water Baptism is not valid because it was done in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is a gross negligence of Biblical understanding.
To your own very point that if my Thread is useless, why did you waste your time pointing out the Baptism of The Eunuch and Paul?
Very good biblical point; I agree with you on that. Yet the words " I baptize you in Jesus' name are never recorded with those baptisms; it was assumed.
Yeah, yeah, I'm so afraid of your condemnation. And for the record, you need to read Luke 24:47 again, oops. And read Mark 16: and Mathew 28:19
You make water more powerful than the Cross or the Blood of Jesus.
What is the name? LOL, in the Greek and understanding of King's English, the name means 'authority,' the act or message done or given by. I was baptized by my pastor, who was given the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ according to the Word of God, and baptized me in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. All born-again know the Name, that's why they are saved before they are water baptized, because that understanding is spiritually discerned. And even in the UPC, Hello!!!!!,
The UPC pastor says, "By your profession of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of Jesus."
Even you Onesness types don't listen to your own water baptisms, you do LOL.
So you found someone to scratch your itching ears.
There are no bibles old or modern that translates Acts 2:38 in such a convoluted manner.
There are no bibles in any human language that translates Acts 2:38 in such a convoluted manner.
You are but grasping at straws.
Water baptism is in order to receive the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit, not because of the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit.
I trust Luke over Mr. Robertson and your silly appeal to authority.
As Greek scholar AT Robertson pointed out - And be baptized every one of you (κα βαπτισθητω εκαστος υμων). Rather, "And let each one of you be baptized." Change of number from plural to singular and of person from second to third. This change marks a break in the thought here that the English translation does not preserve.
https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/rwp/acts-2.html
E Calvin Beisner also with training in Greek points out - In short, the most precise English translation of the relevant clauses, arranging them to reflect the switches in person and number of the verbs, would be, “You (plural) repent for the forgiveness of your (plural) sins, and let each one (singular) of you be baptized (singular)….” Or, to adopt our Southern dialect again, “Y’all repent for the forgiveness of y’all’s sins, and let each one of you be baptized….”
When I showed this translation to the late Julius Mantey, one of the foremost Greek grammarians of the twentieth century and co-author of A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (originally published in 1927), he approved and even signed his name next to it in the margin of my Greek New Testament. These arguments, lexical and grammatical, stand independently. Even if one rejects both lexical meanings of for, he still must face the grammatical argument, and even if he rejects the grammatical conclusion, he still must face the lexical argument. Does Acts 2:38 prove baptismal remission? No, it doesn’t even support it as part of a cumulative case. — E. Calvin Beisner
http://www.equip.org/PDF/JAA238.pdf
False. Water baptism is "in regard to/on the basis of" the remission of sins received upon repentance. Matthew 3:11 - As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance.. Now was this baptism for (in order to obtain) repentance or was it for "in regard to/on the basis of" the remission of sins received upon repentance? Obviously the latter. Repentance precedes water baptism.
I trust Mr Robertson over Mr Lamar and more importantly, I trust Luke over your preconceived bias about Acts 2:38. Luke 24:47 - and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. What happened to baptism? Also, what happened to baptism in (Acts 3:19; 5:31; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 13:38-39; 15:7-9; 16:31; 26:18) *Hermeneutics.
Im sorry. I didnt mean the thread was useless. But just that in Christianity we have shot ourselves in the foot by not following the biblical method of baptizing converts immediately. This way there is no need to debate on if baptism is required for salvation cause everyone is already baptized shortly after faith. One less thing to argue about.
I also agree that its wrong to claim that you need to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ verbatim. I was baptized in the name (singular) of the Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit. Notice the singular name, not names plural, denoting the unity of the 3. I take it that Luke was talking about baptizing in Jesus name as in the authority of Jesus, baptizing the way Jesus commanded.
Most every honest Theologian agrees with what the Greek actually says, versus the somewhat ambiguous English translation;
2:38-39. Peter's answer was forthright. First they were to repent. This verb (metanoēsate) means “change your outlook,” or “have a change of heart; reverse the direction of your life.” This obviously results in a change of conduct, but the emphasis is on the mind or outlook. The Jews had rejected Jesus; now they were to trust in Him. Repentance was repeatedly part of the apostles' message in Acts (v. 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 8:22; 11:18; 13:24; 17:30; 19:4; 20:21; 26:20).
A problem revolves around the command “be baptized” and its connection with the remainder of 2:38. There are several views:
(1) One is that both repentance and baptism result in remission of sins. In this view, baptism is essential for salvation. The problem with this interpretation is that elsewhere in Scripture forgiveness of sins is based on faith alone (Jn 3:16,36; Ro 4:1-17; 11:6; Ga 3:8-9; Ep 2:8-9; etc.). Furthermore Peter, the same speaker, later promised forgiveness of sins on the basis of faith alone (Ac 5:31; 10:43; 13:38; 26:18).
(2) A second interpretation translates 2:38, “Be baptized… on the basis of the remission of your sins.” The preposition used here is eis which, with the accusative case, may mean “on account of, on the basis of.” It is used in this way in Mt 3:11; 12:41; and Mk 1:4. Though it is possible for this construction to mean “on the basis of,” this is not its normal meaning; eis with the accusative case usually describes purpose or direction.
(3) A third view takes the clause and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ as parenthetical. Several factors support this interpretation: (a) The verb makes a distinction between singular and plural verbs and nouns. The verb “repent” is plural and so is the pronoun “your” in the clause so that your sins may be forgiven (lit., “unto the remission of your sins,” eis aphesin tōn hamartiōn hymōn). Therefore the verb “repent” must go with the purpose of forgiveness of sins.
On the other hand the imperative “be baptized” is singular, setting it off from the rest of the sentence. (b) This concept fits with Peter's proclamation in Ac 10:43 in which the same expression “sins may be forgiven” (aphesin hamartiōn) occurs. There it is granted on the basis of faith alone. (c) In Lk 24:47 and Ac 5:31 the same writer, Luke, indicates that repentance results in remission of sins.
Amen. Name is authority. These people who make a big deal about the name haven't read one of their own proof texts:
Isaiah 9:6
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
Why don't they baptize people into the name of "Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace"
Could it be that the name in that verse is talking about titles and authority the Son has?
Stop in the name of the law. What is the law's name?
I totally agree.
People who
Romans 10:9-11
9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.”
Should be baptised straight away or at the very least ASAP.
The church puts people under pressure with expecting a big testimony after interrogation of whom they are and what they are like.
Jesus said come to me as you are.
Jesus also said make disciples and baptise in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.