Yes, that does sound like a hoot, but I may actually be more aligned with alliteration...
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.
Ephesians 4 verses 5-6 ~ There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; 5one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
And what scripture tells you the thief “wasn’t baptized at all”? Just wonder how you know that when the rest of us don’t know.
True, the thief was saved by the blood of Christ just like everyone else. But who told the thief to be baptized?? No one. The old Jewish law of Moses which applied to him did not require baptism to be saved. So he was never required to be baptized. He was only required to obey the law that applied to him and baptism was not a requirement. So why all the worry about whether the thief was baptized or not? He is no example for us. We live under the law of Christ.
If you will read Hebrews 9:16-17 you will see that The New law of Christ did not come into effect until He DIED. Just like anyone who has a “will” today. A person’s will is not in effect until they die. This is what Hebrews 9 is talking about. The law of Christ commanded baptism. The Jewish law of Moses did not.
So, if he lived under a law that did not command baptism and The law of Christ was not in effect yet since He was still alive, then why is anyone worried about the thief being baptized??? And why would anyone think that his circumstances and ours are alike?? He is not an example for Christian’s. Not only was Christ’s law not in effect then, but His church had not been established yet, and Jesus Himself said that “REPENTANCE and Remission of sins”( baptism, Acts 2:38) would be preached FIRST beginning at Jerusalem. Luke 24:47. That prophecy was fulfilled at Pentecost ( Acts 2) FIFTY DAYS AFTER THE THIEF AND JESUS WERE DEAD!!
Who knows if the thief had even ever heard of baptism? Instead of worrying about whether the thief was baptized, we need to be worried about our own salvation and whether we have obeyed Jesus’s command to be baptized.
I don't care what scholars and theologians (please name them) You say you looked up. The text states Paul asked.
Have you received the HOLY Spirit since you believed That is the subject matter? You are telling me that Paul asked if they receive the
Holy Spirit since they believed it means water Baptism in Jesus' name?
Acts 19:1
19 While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples 2 and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”
If it were important and he was not a jewish thief and had been baptized for some odd reason scripture would mention it. No he wasnt water baptized and you know it or should. For the sake of argument say he was baptised some how for some reason. Is that what saved him? People here can come up with some wild theories.
And yet, when Phillip “preached Jesus” to the eunuch in Acts 8, as soon as they came to some water, the eunuch wanted to be baptized. How did he know about baptism?? WHEN did he learn about baptism? He did not even know who Jesus was before Phillip preached Jesus to him. I would say that Phillip preached the gospel to this man when he preached Jesus to him. And baptism was not only a part of the gospel, it was so important that the man wanted to be baptized as soon as they found some water.
Fast forward to Acts 16. A gentile jailer living hundreds of miles from Jerusalem, asked what to do to be saved. Do you think he knew who Jesus was? Or ever even heard of Jesus before that night? He was told to believe but did he even know WHAT to believe? Paul “spoke the word of the Lord” to him. Wouldn’t that be the gospel Paul was teaching him? And what do you think!? They were BAPTIZED, immediately!! In the wee hours of the morning! How did they know about baptism? How did they know to be baptized? It had to be when Paul taught them the gospel. So the gospel DOES have rituals that must be performed, and commandments that must be obeyed. Verse 34 is interesting. It says that “he rejoiced, HAVING BELIEVED IN GOD with all his house.” “Belief”, according to the Holy Spirit is MORE than just faith and trust.
Did you really read my post? I was not arguing that the thief was baptized. He very well might not have been. I took issue with YOUR statement that declared in no uncertain terms that HE WAS NOT BAPTIZED, and I just wondered how you know that? Because none of the rest of us know for sure whether HE was or not. I would be the last person to say that he was, because my entire post was showing why IT DOESN’t MATTER if he was or not. Maybe you better read it again.
“(which is symbolic for the present age). According to this arrangement, gifts and sacrifices are offered that cannot perfect the conscience of the worshiper, but deal only with food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until the time of reformation.”
Hebrews 9:9-10 ESV
https://bible.com/bible/59/heb.9.9-10.ESV
That word washings that you see in Hebrews 9:10 is baptismois in the original language. So the previous covenant dealt with food and drink and various baptisms. Notice it says those regulations for the body would be imposed until the time of reformation. Did Christ eliminate one set of regulations for the body only to install another regulation for the body? The baptism that matters now is our immersion into Christ. Not regulations for the body.
Repentance and remission of sins. The most common version of the and there is eis. There is that word again. Translated into in Galatians 3 and Romans 6. Translated for in Acts 2:38. Translated and in some versions of Luke 24:47.
The primary meaning of eis is into. If you translate it as into or for in Luke 24:47 then Jesus said that repentance for the remission of sins would be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. That causes a problem for the idea that water baptism is for the remission of sins. But some versions such as the ESV do translate it as for.
“and that repentance for the forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.”
Luke 24:47 ESV
https://bible.com/bible/59/luk.24.47.ESV
The law never saved anyone. So the law isn't what we should be looking to for salvation, but Christ. That's exactly what the thief did, and that's exactly what we all need to do...place our trust in Him.
Salvation has always come by grace through faith.
This is the statement page I copied for you.
In Acts 19, Paul encounters twelve disciples of John the Baptist in Ephesus who had been baptized but hadn't received the Holy Spirit. Paul explains that John's baptism was a baptism of repentance, preparing people for the Messiah. He then baptized these disciples in the name of the Lord Jesus. After this water baptism, Paul laid his hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit, which is a separate and distinct event.
Elaboration:
John's Baptism:
John the Baptist's baptism was a baptism of repentance, urging people to believe in the coming Messiah, Jesus.
Paul's Baptism:
Paul baptized these disciples in the name of the Lord Jesus, which is a distinct act of baptism associated with the Christian faith.
Laying on of Hands:
After the water baptism, Paul laid his hands on the disciples, and they received the Holy Spirit. This act was not directly tied to the water baptism but rather a separate event signifying the receiving of the Spirit.
Purpose of Acts 19:
This passage in Acts highlights the importance of the water baptism in the name of Jesus and the separate gift of the Holy Spirit, which is received through the laying on of hands. It also demonstrates how the early church was moving from a previous understanding (John's baptism) to a fuller understanding of the Christian faith (baptism in the name of Jesus and receiving the Holy Spirit).
Well, if we are going to talk about “made up stories” let’s begin with the one that says he was never baptized. If you know that then you know something no one else knows.
But it makes no difference if he was or not. At best, if he was, it would have been with the baptism if John which is no example for us today because the baptism of John does not exist anymore and has been replaced by the baptism of Jesus.
Since the thief lived under the old Jewish law of Moses, he was never commanded to be baptized anyway. So it doesn’t matter.
While Jesus was here on earth, He could save people anyway He pleased. He also saved the man let down through a hole in the roof. You want to be saved like that??? The thief is not an example for us today on how to be saved. Jesus is no longer here to personally save us. Just like He left the Holy Spirit to comfort and guide them ater he was gone, even so, He left a “PLAN”” for how people would be saved when He was no longer here to do it personally. We can’t be saved like the thief on the cross even if we wanted to. Jesus is no longer here to save us like He did the thief.[/QUOTE]
"Jesus is no longer here to save us ..."
But he is. God's Holy Spirit enters in and leads,opens, the natural minds, consciousness ,of people so they can understand his Gospel.
Dear Wansvic, the Holy Spirit was active and sometimes indwelt or empowered individuals in the Old Testament. The permanent, universal indwelling of the Spirit in all believers began with the New Testament, following the death and resurrection of Jesus and the Day of Pentecost. God bless you, brother.
I quote: “ The teaching of scripture is that remission ONLY comes by grace through faith. ( Eph. 2:8-9)”. That wasn’t you?? Aren’t YOU the one saying that remission “ONLY comes by grace through faith?? I am not being untruthful at all. I quoted you verbatim. And you DID INSERT THE WORD “ONLY”. In there as being in Eph. 2:8-9, so please tell me how I was untruthful.
All one has to do is read Ephesians 2:8-9 in the Bible to know that I was telling the truth about the word”only” not being there. THAT is what proves my point. Not being untruthful.
"Jesus is no longer here to save us ..."
But he is. God's Holy Spirit enters in and leads,opens, the natural minds, consciousness ,of people so they can understand his Gospel.[/QUOTE]
I am not saying you are wrong—until I have read the scriptures that you use to teach this. I am not familiar with any scriptures that say this, right off hand, but you may be and I would just like to know what they are. Just asking for information.
I have been away for a few days but where did CS1 state that "remission ONLY comes by grace through faith.(Eph.2:8-9)"
If he truly did write this then he is a card carrying faith alone regeneration theology pusher and maybe beyond help.
If you have to insert a definitive such a "only" or "alone" into a verse to support your assertion then your assertion is rather weak.
Actually Paul makes the argument that you cannot rightfully call yourselves after some one UNLESS that person was 1) crucified for you and 2) you were baptized in his name. He’s addressing the problem of those Corinthians wearing the names of men. ( Like Lutherans calling themselves after Martin Luther). Probably after the one who baptized them, which is why Paul said he was glad he did not baptize many of them. He did not want anyone calling themselves by the name of “Paul.”
This is a good scripture to show that denominationalism is wrong. Paul states that the problem is that there are divisions there and he was not pleased. Couple that with the prayer of Jesus to the Father in John 17.
Paul’s point is that you can’t call yourself by someone’s name unless you were baptized into that name. Which would make baptism in the name of Jesus NECESSARY to being called a CHRIST-Ian. So those who aren’t baptized because they think it’s not necessary, don’t have the right to call themselves after “Christ.” This is the apostle Paul’s argument —not mine.
As you can see, I am not against baptizing in the name of Jesus by the authority of the Godhead Matthew 28:19. But the interpretation of just “one”in the godhead is wrong. John 17 and 1 John 5:7.
Thank you so much for this. I have wanted to delete and start over somtimes but had no idea how to do it. I will screen shot your explanation so I can refer to it often—I will need to, I’m afraid. lol. Much obliged for the help.
If salvation is based solely on "faith alone" for some odd reason scripture would mention it. Correct?
The thief on the cross was probably not baptized for the remission of sins.
Yes, many were baptized for the remission of sins during the ministry of John the Baptist and Jesus Christ but many were not. The thief on the cross was probably in the latter.
But it would be foolish to state as a fact either way. Which it seems you are doing.
If it means that much to you, just ask him yourself in heaven but he probably gets tried of the question.
BTW, many people insist that his name was Dismas but that is an assumption also.