The Error is Baptism in Jesus name only for salvation

[BillG]

BillG said

The seeds will whither and die because it's not biblical.
You have agreed that JESUS NEVER SAID TO BE BAPTISED IN HIS NAME ONLY.

You spout oness and I assume deny the trinity.

Sorry it is biblical, you not agreeing with it is up to you. You can think of me as you wish I didn't die for you. So what I said JESUS never said it, DID HE? Peter and Paul SAID IT DOES THAT COUNT?

 

[BillG]

You preach people are not saved because their sins have not gotten rid off because they are not baptised on the name of Jesus only.

It has everything to with what you believe and claim.

Own it

I sure do, but it's not my rule book it's HIS. If a person has not been baptized in JESUS name they possibly have sins from 4 generations and those they have committed. Can't ENTER heaven with sin!!

Our sins have been gotten rid off because of what Jesus did on the cross.
Our sins are forgiven when we place our faith in Jesus.
That is what I mean.

Therefore we cannot get rid of our sins.
As for the 4 years of generations please provide the scripture.

 

[BillG]

The one in your profile pic is cute. I have a Chiweenie. Hard headed but I like her most of the time. 😁

Just had a look at one.
Gorgeous dogs.

 

[Ouch]

John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit of God from the womb
and there is not one instance of him speaking in tongues in the Bible.

Romans 12 verses 6-8 We have different gifts according to the grace given us. If one’s gift is prophecy, let him use it in proportion to his faith; if it is serving, let him serve; if it is teaching, let him teach; 8if it is encouraging, let him encourage; if it is giving, let him give generously; if it is leading, let him lead with diligence; if it is showing mercy, let him do it cheerfully.

100% true, JESUS was also. I guess I should have added to my question anyone in the NT after JESUS ascended the second time when the Holy Ghost was given and the evidence was speaking in tongues. Acts 2:4, Acts 2:33

 

[Wansvic]

From Romans 1 we know that the invisible things of God are known from the things that are seen. We can learn some things about spiritual birth from natural birth. Hence, the question.
No one had anything to do with their physical birth. Likewise, no one had anything to do with their spiritual birth.

How God designed the natural birth does reveal much about the spiritual birth.

The baby TURNS just prior to birth - Repentance
The baby exits the waters of the womb - Water Baptism
The baby inhales life sustaining air into their body - Receiving of the Holy Spirit

 

[Wansvic]

They repented and believed in the Lord Jesus Christ as the word of God says Baptism was an act of Obedience to Jesus as Jesus was water Baptized, and HE did not sin.

Actually after people acknowledged their belief in Jesus they asked Peter what they must do. It wasn't until after the people obeyed what Peter stated that they were added. They were NOT added before responding in obedience to the message.

Repent
And be baptized EVERYONE of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins
And you shall receive the Holy Ghost

They believed Peter's message and after obedience were added to the church.

Acts 2:36-41
Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?

38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, AND be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, AND ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.

41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

 

[Ouch]

if his walk is between him and the Lord, why did you say he can't be saved ?

LOL, I never told anyone they can't be saved!!

Why

Finally:

How Did The Early Church Really Do It?

First, these are not magical incantations. Baptism is not hokus-pokus salvation. Those who insist that Acts 2:38 must be recited in order for the baptism to “work” are guilty of turning baptism into a spell.

But what did the first Christians say as they were baptizing converts? Oneness/Jesus’ Only practitioners say that the book of Acts proves their claim. But if Luke, the writer of Acts, had intended to record word-for-word the exact phrase the baptizer was to utter, then why didn’t he write it the same way every time?

• Acts 2:38 “… in the name of Jesus Christ …”
• 8:16 “… in the name of the Lord Jesus.”
• 10:48 “… in the name of Jesus Christ.”
• 19:5 “ … in the name of the Lord Jesus.”
• 22:16 “… calling on His name.”

One would think that if there is a precise formula of words that needs to be said in order for baptism to “work,” Luke would have been careful enough to record it that way every time. Luke didn’t report a formula, liturgical phrase, or incantation that was said before every baptism. He noted that these baptisms were performed under the authority of Jesus.

The emphasis in every verse is on the person being baptized, not the one doing the baptizing. This is why we don’t read “they were baptized by Paul, who said, ‘in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.’”

But consider Acts 19:2-3. Paul comes to some disciples at Ephesus:

He said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said to him, “No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.” And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” And they said, “Into John’s baptism.”

Isn’t it odd that Paul answers the admission, “we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit,” by blurting, “Into what then were you baptized?”

His response would make no sense, except that Paul can’t understand how they could have heard the baptizer say, “in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit,” and yet claim they’d never heard whether there is a Holy Spirit. As soon as they confess their ignorance about the third Person of the Trinity, Paul knows that something was amiss with their baptisms.

First I don't mean to be rude, I just have NO tack and just stick with the facts. I guess that is what happens with 28 years of law enforcment.

I find it very difficult to get you to answer simple questions.

1. according to HIS word how do we get rid of our sins?

2. can you show where anyone in HIS word told anyone else to baptized in the name of the father, the son and the Holy Ghost.

Acts 1
4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.
5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

Acts 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Acts 2:33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.

As you can see JESUS told HIS disciple NOT TO GO OUT AND PREACH without the Holy Ghost!!

In Acts 2:4 they got it, and in verse 33 Peter explains that is what happen when you get it.

3. Have YOU received the Holy Ghost like JESUS gave HIS DISCIPLES in Acts 2:4.

Thank you so much, GOD BLESS.

 

[Wansvic]

Acts 19 The Holy Spirit is not water, which Paul was contextually speaking that those disciples had received since they Believed. They did not say, "I did not even hear of water Baptism. They said they had not even heard of the Holy Spirit.

You're stuck in water, guy. The HS was the topic. Jesus' Baptism is of the Holy Spirit. As stated in John chapter 1:33

Why do you fail to see this in the text? Then, miss the context.

Everyone living after Jesus' sacrifice had to be water baptized in His name in association with His crucifixion. (Acts 2:36-38) And Paul certainly knew this because Ananias instructed him to do the same. (Acts 22:16) The account indicates the 12 received the Holy Ghost AFTER they were baptized in the name of Jesus.

Luke 24:46-47
And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

 

[Wansvic]

I just took the time to look up the several possible meanings to this passage of Scripture and it's overwhelming hands down believed to be about water baptism according to scholars and theologians.

John could only offer water baptism and nothing more and the baptism he offered is invalid according to the Bible so they would have needed to be water baptized anyway. And theologians and scholars feel that's what happened here.

The scripture itself reveals they were baptized in the name of Jesus. We know this was a reference to the NT water baptism introduced at Pentecost because immediately afterward Paul laid hands upon them and they received the Holy Ghost. (Acts 19:1-7)

 

[Wansvic]

Is there something that I missed in Acts 2 where it says that the Acts 2:38 example is the only way? Or maybe it says this way alone?
Where is the water in Acts 2:38? Are you surmising that the baptism is a water baptism? Paraphrasing it, I believe it says “repent and be immersed into forgiveness of sins”. That is not a water baptism. Water is not mentioned in the verse.

“I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another.”
‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭4‬:‭6‬ ‭ESV‬‬
https://bible.com/bible/59/1co.4.6.ESV

See Acts 10:43, 47-48. Baptism in the name of Jesus is water baptism.

 

[Wansvic]

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?”

The bible reveals the truth:
Acts 19:5-6
When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

AND (meaning afterward) when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

 

[Wansvic]

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

What Jesus said parallels the message Peter presented at Jerusalem. Repentance AND being baptized in the name of Jesus for remission of sin are separate requirements.

 

[Wansvic]

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.

Scripture expresses that in Jesus dwells the fulness of the Godhead. (Father, Son and Holy Ghost) As such, the name referenced in Matthew 28:19 is in fact the name of Jesus.

 

[TrustandObey]

To those who believe in the need to be baptized in the name of Jesus and not the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

I was baptized using the phrase, I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.

Would this be acceptable?

 

[lrs68]

The scripture itself reveals they were baptized in the name of Jesus. We know this was a reference to the NT water baptism introduced at Pentecost because immediately afterward Paul laid hands upon them and they received the Holy Ghost. (Acts 19:1-7)

I know because had the Baptism in verse 5 been them receiving the Holy Spirit there would be no reason for the next verse about Paul putting his hands upon them and then they received the Holy Spirit.

That same process in Acts 19 matches Philip with the Eunich [he believed, then was water Baptized in Jesus name, then was filled with the Holy Spirit]. So throughout the Book of Acts we continue to see the same process over and over.

Anyone choosing to deny the meaning is doing it for doctrinal purposes. But the scholars and theologians [many are trinitarians] still interpret it the way it literally happened... Believed - water Baptized Jesus name - filled with Holy Spirit.

 

[lrs68]

To those who believe in the need to be baptized in the name of Jesus and not the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

I was baptized using the phrase, I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.

Would this be acceptable?

My side of the discussion is presenting the many scholars and theologians that believe both ways have the same meaning being Baptized in Jesus name.

 

[Cameron143]

How God designed the natural birth does reveal much about the spiritual birth.

The baby TURNS just prior to birth - Repentance
The baby exits the waters of the womb - Water Baptism
The baby inhales life sustaining air into their body - Receiving of the Holy Spirit

The baby had nothing to do with its birth. It simply happened to the infant. So too when one is born again. The Spirit blows where it wills.

 

[BillG]

That same process in Acts 19 matches Philip with the Eunich [he believed, then was water Baptized in Jesus name, then was filled with the Holy Spirit]. So throughout the Book of Acts we continue to see the same process over and over.

I cannot see that the Eunuch was baptised in the name of Jesus or received the Holy Spirit

Acts 8:37-38
37 Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.”
And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”
38 So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him.

 

[lrs68]

I cannot see that the Eunuch was baptised in the name of Jesus or received the Holy Spirit

Acts 8:37-38
37 Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.”
And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”
38 So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him.

Yep, I wonder why the Eunich was mentioned in what I copied\pasted unless they were referring everything back to verses 15-17:


15 who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Spirit:
16 for as yet it was fallen upon none of them: only they had been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.
17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.

^
This must be what they were referencing being water Baptized and then after laying hands on them they received the Holy Spirit.

 

[JBTN]

See Acts 10:43, 47-48. Baptism in the name of Jesus is water baptism.

In Acts 10:47-48 the Greek word baptisthenai is used. It is the aorist infinitive passive form of the verb. it is my understanding that an aorist infinitive can be thought of as a verbal noun. So, is he telling them to go get immersed in water, or is he saying they have been immersed already.

Perhaps Peter is, from a position of authority, declaring them to be immersed already.

“And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days.”
‭‭Acts‬ ‭10‬:‭48‬ ‭ESV‬‬
https://bible.com/bible/59/act.10.48.ESV