Search results

Go back a bit further in Matt 18 to verse 15 and see the Greek in the interlinear. It's talking about forgiving the brother that sins 'hamartese' you. Read the entire text of Matt 18:5-22. Here it's discussing forgiveness of sins too, not by baptism. You're reading into this specific text...

Where in the entire text of this event is there any mention at all of baptism? John 20 19Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them...

Granted the John scripture is a version of the great commission of Matt and Mark as noted but to assume this has something to do with baptism is a stretch since there is no text in John to say or even remotely suggest that. Even the wording doesn't suggest baptism is the means of sin remission...

John 20:23 has nothing to do with baptism within the context of John 20:20-23 unlike the great commission as recorded in Matt 28 or Mark 16 and sounds much like Matthew 18:18, or Matthew 16:19 John 20:23 23Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye...

Understood and agree.

Your beginning quote of John 20 doesn't apply. It relates more to Mat 16 and 18, it not at all to this discussion. And I'm not at all against baptism; In fact as stated before, I'm a 1000000% believer in it's necessity to be saved. I'm simply questioning the current day administration of it as...

You are not looking at Acts 2 and 10 correctly as the falling of the Holy Ghost in these 2 instances were not the norm but anomalies and can't be used as you've suggested. There are numerous postings covering this subject as well as threads entitled "Spiritual gifts: them" parts 1 thru 4...

1st of all, Hebrews 9 is clear as relates to when the NT took effect and how that further effects the poor argument made regarding the thief in the cross. You couldn't be baptized into Christ while he was yet alive. You couldn't be baptized into his death as Romans 6 says or be buried with him...

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...

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...

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...

"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...

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...

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...

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)...

You didn't answer the question. I was baptized many, many years ago and I'm not even sure if it was in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins or the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. My wife was baptized in the coC more recently and it was in tge name of the Father----...

So having said that, if someone was baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost for the remission of sins, are they or are they not saved, in Christ, and a member of the Lord's body?

Just a comment for thought and consideration. I've thought about this a lot over time. In the gospels it says be baptized in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, but then after starting in the book of Acts it's in the name of Jesus Christ, i.e., Acts 2:38 and elsewhere...

Many times, people erroneously cite Acts 9, and specifically the words of Ananias to Saul in verse 17, as justification that Ananias, who was not an apostle, also possessed the ability to bring about the manifestation of the Holy Spirit/Ghost, the falling of or being filled with the...