The Error is Baptism in Jesus name only for salvation

[CS1]

I am hopeful you'll read the following, it addresses calling on the name of Jesus.

Consider Paul. He was on his way to Damascus to persecute Christians when Jesus supernaturally appeared to him from heaven. Paul asked Jesus, “What shall I do?” Jesus said, “Arise and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do” (Acts 9:4-6; 22:10). Paul ...proceeded to Damascus where he fasted for three days and was “praying” (Acts 9:8-11), awaiting further instructions.
... God used a man named Ananias, who said to Paul: “And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). Notice carefully that Ananias, God’s specially chosen messenger to Paul, did not tell Paul that his sins were washed away when Paul spoke to Jesus on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:4-6), or when he fasted for three days (9:9), or when he prayed (9:11). Even though Paul had seen Jesus, talked to Jesus, and sincerely fasted and prayed, he had not yet “called upon the Lord.” Acts 22:16 indicates that he “called upon the Lord” and had his sins washed away by the blood of Jesus when he took the final step on his way to becoming a Christian—when he was “baptized into Christ Jesus” (Romans 6:3-4).
Paul’s “calling on the name of the Lord” harmonizes perfectly with what Peter instructed the thousands of people to do in Acts 2. Peter quoted from the prophecy of Joel and told those in Jerusalem on Pentecost that “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Acts 2:21; Joel 2:32). The people in Acts 2 did not understand Peter’s quotation of Joel to mean that a sinner must pray to God for salvation. ... Furthermore, when Peter responded to their question and told them what to do to be saved, he did not say, “I’ve already told you what to do. You can be saved by petitioning God for salvation through prayer. Just call on His name.” On the contrary, Peter had to explain to them what it meant to “call on the name of the Lord.” Instead of repeating this statement when the crowd sought further guidance from the apostles, Peter commanded them, saying, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38).

In Romans 10:13, Paul (like Peter in Acts 2) quoted from Joel 2:32: “[W]hoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.” When we allow “the Bible to explain the Bible,” we will not come to the erroneous conclusion that Paul is commanding the unbelieving Jews in Romans 10 to merely “cry out to the Lord” (cf. Matthew 7:21) or to “pray the sinner’s prayer.” Rather, with Paul’s own conversion in mind (his “calling on the name of the Lord”—Acts 22:16), as well as those on Pentecost (Acts 2), we realize that in Romans 10 Paul is pleading with (especially) the Jews, who “have not all obeyed the gospel” (Romans 10:16) to “call on the name of the Lord”—that is, to “obey the gospel.” And to “obey the Gospel” is to hear and believe the Gospel (Romans 10:17), to repent of sins (Romans 6:2,6; Acts 2:38), to make the good confession that Jesus Christ is the Son of God (Romans 10:9-10), and to be immersed in water for the remission of sins (Romans 6:3-4; Acts 2:38; 22:16). This is what it means for sinners to “call upon the name of the Lord.” AP excerpt.

you can mix Act a with Romans to cloud the water of Context of Romans it will not work. Water baptism in Jesus name only for Salvation is unbiblical, and error.

You try to remove what Jesus said and take what Peter and Paul said to prop up your false teaching.

 

[Wansvic]

again yo know a Jesus is that is limited in His work on the cross. Not the Jesus of the bible.

Clearly you are missing the point.

 

[Blue155]

I see you added to Romans Act 2:21 2:38 Acts 22:16

but removed Romans 10:9-12 why?

I’ve got Romans 10:9 in there. I have no trouble with verses 10-12. I believe those verses, as verse 12 mentions call upon Him. Just as I believe verse 13 and how to call on the name of the Lord, which is answered in those verses I mentioned in a previous post.

 

[BillG]

Wasn't Peter preaching to the Jews in Acts 2?

Acts 2:22-24
22 “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know— 23 Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death; 24 whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it.

Acts 2:36-39
36 “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.”
37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?”
38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.”

Maybe those on here who quote Acts 2:38 are Jewish?

 

[BillG]

We find in Acts 10 when Peter was given the vision by God about accepting the gentiles.
Probably after the day of Pentecost.

Acts 10:43-48
43 To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins.”
The Holy Spirit Falls on the Gentiles
44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word.
45 And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also.
46 For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God.
Then Peter answered,
47 “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”
48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days.

 

[Blue155]

In total, the lost is to hear the word (Romans 10:17), believe (v 11, 14), of course, repentance is necessary (Rom. 2:4), confess (Rom. 10:9-10), call on Jesus’s name (Rom. 10:12-13). Calling on His name is seen in Acts 2:38 and Acts 22:16.

 

[CS1]

Clearly you are missing the point.

no I'm not. You are teaching a weak gospel. Stuck in a one verse built doctrine. You made water baptism superior to The Blood of Jesus and Grace through faith. By the work of what Jesus did on the cross for salvation.

Romans is written to the Jews about salvation in Christ. Hebrews written of the Supremacy of Christ an faith in him. The four Gospels written to testify of Jesus as God, The Messiah, King, and Savior. His Gospel and our ministry is unto him to win the lost.

 

[Blue155]

The same gospel that saved the Jews on Pentecost is the same that saved the Gentiles, as the gospel is to everyone that believes (Rom. 1:16). Believes in how to be saved according to the authority of Jesus Christ. Therefore, Acts 2:38 is for both Jew/Gentile. Same gospel. Same plan. Same authority. Same promise.

 

[CS1]

I’ve got Romans 10:9 in there. I have no trouble with verses 10-12. I believe those verses, as verse 12 mentions call upon Him. Just as I believe verse 13 and how to call on the name of the Lord, which is answered in those verses I mentioned in a previous post.

9-10 thank you vey much and 11 The funny thing is it says Confess with your mouth and believe in your heart to be saved then it states how that happens does it not?

:10 "For with the heart one Believes unto Righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto Salvation"

it not calling is an action that was done to save the person who did what verse 9 states. This is personal.

verse 9 says hey are saved Sozo. Past tense. Good try.

 

[BillG]

The same Gospel that saved the gentiles also saved the Jews

 

[CS1]

9-10 thank you vey much and 11 The funny thing is it says Confess with your mouth and believe in your heart to be saved then it states how that happens does it not?

:10 "For with the heart one Believes unto Righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto Salvation"

it not calling is an action that was done to save the person who did what verse 9 states. This is personal.

verse 9 says hey are saved Sozo. Past tense. Good try.

I don't see water Baptism mentioned here it would have been a good thing to do as you think it is necessary for salvation.

 

[CS1]

These modern day Pharisees. Will have anyone going to hell if they are not following the mode of salvation. As if God is limited to save one who calls on Jesus, repents and trust in Him. That dies and was not water baptized in Jesus name only. They also believe I am willing to bet that babies who die and were not water baptized go to hell also. They have opened a can of worms they will not be able to answer.

 

[BillG]

These modern day Pharisees. Will have anyone going to hell if they are not following the mode of salvation. As if God is limited to save one who calls on Jesus, repents and trust in Him. That dies and was not water baptized in Jesus name only. They also believe I am willing to bet that babies who die and were not water baptized go to hell also. They have opened a can of worms they will not be able to answer.

They like to play God and sit on his throne and send them to hell.
Only difference is they won't say because as you say if they did on here they would be banned.
You can ask them that along with whether they belive in the Trinity and they won't answer because they know they will be banned.

If I believed like they do I would be passionate enough to tell people they are not saved because they were not baptised in Jesus name only.
If I didn't then when I stand before God he wouldn't be happy with me.

There suddenly seems to be an influx of the Oneness Pentecostal heresy at the moment here.

I have asked them many times if they believe in the Trinity and if I'm not saved and they never answer.

Only one person on here has ever said I'm not saved.

 

[LightBearer316]

@BillG, my point is about God’s provision and human response. Naaman had the means of healing available by the mercy and grace of God that he didn’t earn, but the cleansing only happened when he obeyed God’s command to dip in the Jordan. If he had refused, he wouldn’t have been healed. God provided the way, and Naaman submitted to it.

Had Naaman refused, would he have been cleansed of his leprosy? No.

That’s a good point, Blue155, perhaps a bit of Ai error in it, but notice that Naaman’s obedience didn’t cause the cleansing — it was the means by which he received what God had already promised. The power wasn’t in the water or the act itself but in God’s word.


The same pattern shows up in salvation: obedience is the response of faith, not the basis of grace. Romans 4:16 says, “Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace.” Naaman believed the prophet’s word and acted accordingly — just as we believe the gospel and respond in faith. But in both cases, the saving power rests entirely in God, not in the external act.

Grace and Peace

 

[Blue155]

Actually, “saved” in Romans 10:9 is future tense in the Greek according to BLB, just as it is in Acts 2:21 when Peter also used saved. Not past tense. The Greek word there is sōzō.

We use what sounds as a past tense word in our day as well to mean something in the future, as future sense. I’ll give you an example. If I told someone if you grab hold of the float in the river you will be saved, is that past tense or future? Clearly, they have not grabbed hold of the float yet to be saved, so its future.

Notice how verse 13 also says For “whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved”.

That is the same as Peter said in Acts 2:21, to which Joel was prophesying about. The people asked men and brethren what shall we do? Bear in mind, this was after Peter said call upon the name of the Lord in v21. What did Peter say in answer to their question? He said to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins.

Now, if believing and confessing in Jesus as Lord, as well as believing He raised from the dead washes away sins, then why after Paul called him Lord did he recount Ananias telling him that he needed to be baptized, wash away his sins, calling on the name of the Lord? If he was already saved by confessing Lord and believing, then it would make no sense for him to mention Ananias telling him that he needed his sins washed away. Thus, believing and confessing in Jesus did not wash away his sins yet, as he had not yet called upon the name of the Lord to have his sins washed away…to be forgiven by the blood of Christ (Acts 2:21, 38, 22:16).

So, since both Paul and Peter were inspired by the same Spirit of truth (and since the Spirit cannot lie as He is God and God cannot lie (Titus 1:2), then neither Paul nor Peter would have wrote or taught a contradictory message by the authority of Christ of how to be saved from sin by the precious blood of Jesus Christ, or else both would be accursed (Gal. 1:6-9).

In total: He said to believe (Rom. 1:16), repent (Rom. 2:4), confess (Rom. 10:9-10, and call upon the name of the Lord (v13), which is in perfect and complete harmony with what Peter says calling on the name of the Lord involves. It’s also in complete harmony with Jesus, as Jesus says why call me Lord, Lord, and not do the things which I say (Lk. 6:46). Jesus says to believe (Jn. 3:16), repent (Lk. 10:3), confess (Mt. 10:32-33) and he that believes and is baptized shall be saved. (Mk. 16:16). If you want to be saved, you’ll believe and be baptized according to Jesus in Mark 16:16. Peter also says believe (Acts 10:43) and to repent and be baptized (Acts 2:38). For what reason Peter? For the same reason Jesus inspired him to say, by His authority: For the remission of sins.

So, in conclusion, is Paul saying to be saved, you must confess Jesus, believe He’s Lord, but calling on the name of the Lord does not also involve having to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins? He wouldn’t be saying it didn’t involve that, because that would be contradicting what the Spirit inspired Peter to say, which would be having the Spirit contradicting Himself. Paul also would not be saying you don’t have to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins in Rom. 10 v13, because he himself says Ananias told him to arise, be baptized, and was away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord (Acts 22:16). When you put 9-13 together when the whole counsel of God on this subject (Acts 20:27; cf. Ps. 119:160), you don’t get a contradictory message, but a harmonious divine message by two apostles of Christ, who taught the same gospel of salvation, the same doctrine of Christ, and the same way to call upon the name of the Lord to be saved, etc etc.

 

[Blue155]

The same Gospel that saved the gentiles also saved the Jews

Amen.

 

[Blue155]

That’s a good point, Blue155, perhaps a bit of Ai error in it, but notice that Naaman’s obedience didn’t cause the cleansing — it was the means by which he received what God had already promised. The power wasn’t in the water or the act itself but in God’s word.


The same pattern shows up in salvation: obedience is the response of faith, not the basis of grace. Romans 4:16 says, “Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace.” Naaman believed the prophet’s word and acted accordingly — just as we believe the gospel and respond in faith. But in both cases, the saving power rests entirely in God, not in the external act.

Grace and Peace

I clearly said Naaman had the means of healing available by the mercy and grace of God. I never said Naaman’s obedience had the power.

 

[Blue155]

They like to play God and sit on his throne and send them to hell.
Only difference is they won't say because as you say if they did on here they would be banned.
You can ask them that along with whether they belive in the Trinity and they won't answer because they know they will be banned.

If I believed like they do I would be passionate enough to tell people they are not saved because they were not baptised in Jesus name only.
If I didn't then when I stand before God he wouldn't be happy with me.

There suddenly seems to be an influx of the Oneness Pentecostal heresy at the moment here.

I have asked them many times if they believe in the Trinity and if I'm not saved and they never answer.

Only one person on here has ever said I'm not saved.

Except I’m not a Oneness Pentecostal. I do believe in the Trinity. I’m a Christian.

 

[Blue155]

I don't see water Baptism mentioned here it would have been a good thing to do as you think it is necessary for salvation.

I don’t see repentance here. It would have been a good thing to do as you think it is necessary for salvation. Or maybe you do not? I don’t see the blood of Christ, God’s grace and mercy explicitly mentioned in that verse either, but that doesn’t mean we aren’t saved by them just because they aren’t mentioned. Taking your position consistently, it would be a good time to mention those things as you think they are necessary for salvation, which I agree..they are necessary.

This is the danger of taking one verse of how to be saved.

 

[CS1]

I don’t see repentance here. It would have been a good thing to do as you think it is necessary for salvation. Or maybe you do not? I don’t see the blood of Christ, God’s grace and mercy explicitly mentioned in that verse either, but that doesn’t mean we aren’t saved by them just because they aren’t mentioned. Taking your position consistently, it would be a good time to mention those things as you think they are necessary for salvation, which I agree..they are necessary.

This is the danger of taking one verse of how to be saved.

what are you confessing to? Or what are you confessing in need of to be saved? not water baptism. All scriptures contextually.