P
As this subject is controversial, its certain that it will generate disputations. Be as it may the bible very clearly promotes the name of Jesus in baptism throughout the book of Acts.
But baptism is not a New Testament concept of purification, it is deeply rooted in Jewish practice and religious worship in the Old Testament as well.
When reading the Gospels many mainstream Christians fail to realize that they are reading the continued Old Testament, the proof of this is by the Apostle Pauls own statement in Heb. 9:17
For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
But I like the clarity of this verse in the NIV 1984
because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living.
Jesus made this clear at the last supper when he said...
For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
And so it is self evident that after his resurrection and before he ascended, that he made it clear to teach all nations baptizing them in the Name and thus concluding to observe whatsoever he had commanded.
The point is, is that Jesus commission baptism in the New testament, but that baptism was a regular practise prior to our Lords departure.
But notice that beforetime baptism was called the baptism of repentance, so named by the prophet John the Baptist, afterwards we find a command to repent and be baptize in the Name of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:38)
It is obvious that according to Matt. 26:28 that this is indeed the will of the Master, therefore anyone who denies his Name for the remission of sins in baptism, does not honor the will of the Master.
From my keyboard and to your eyes...
Prophecyman
But baptism is not a New Testament concept of purification, it is deeply rooted in Jewish practice and religious worship in the Old Testament as well.
When reading the Gospels many mainstream Christians fail to realize that they are reading the continued Old Testament, the proof of this is by the Apostle Pauls own statement in Heb. 9:17
For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
But I like the clarity of this verse in the NIV 1984
because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living.
Jesus made this clear at the last supper when he said...
For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
And so it is self evident that after his resurrection and before he ascended, that he made it clear to teach all nations baptizing them in the Name and thus concluding to observe whatsoever he had commanded.
The point is, is that Jesus commission baptism in the New testament, but that baptism was a regular practise prior to our Lords departure.
But notice that beforetime baptism was called the baptism of repentance, so named by the prophet John the Baptist, afterwards we find a command to repent and be baptize in the Name of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:38)
It is obvious that according to Matt. 26:28 that this is indeed the will of the Master, therefore anyone who denies his Name for the remission of sins in baptism, does not honor the will of the Master.
From my keyboard and to your eyes...
Prophecyman
Last edited: