Is this the "vital" part?one should joyously submit to being baptized in water.
Should?
Is this the "vital" part?one should joyously submit to being baptized in water.
Vital, but not salvific.Is this the "vital" part?
Should?
Vital, but not salvific.

I can’t be any more succinct than this. It would be great if everyone got dunked at least once as they personally identify with the death, burial, and resurrection of our dear Lord, however if you ain't saved before getting wet it don’t mean nothing.
Okay, so what is it vital toward?
and
What is the "should" toward?
You are sort of dodgy.
I lean toward communal trinitarianism myself. But belief in a Triune God is not vital to having a Father-to son/daughter relationship with God. Various trinitarian models of Yahweh were present in the early church, it is true, but so were unitarian models of Yahweh present in the early church. The fact that trinitarianism was present in the early church does not prove that it was correct or necessary, any more that the presence of unitarian models prove they were true. If my theological opinions are not producing a more loving Christlike character, they are for me merely vain philosophy pretending to be piety. Both unitarians and trinitarians can grow in Christlikeness, or not grow. So, the opinion itself is not essential.
I can’t be any more succinct than this. It would be great if everyone got dunked at least once as they personally identify with the death, burial, and resurrection of our dear Lord, however if you ain't saved before getting wet it don’t mean nothing.
Your inability to grasp what I have repeated said seems to be a comprehension issue on your end.You started at "Baptism has been a vital component of our conversion after our repentance." Post 1827
Then "If at all possible, I believe one should joyously submit to being baptized in water." Post 1838
Followed by "It would be great if everyone got dunked" Post 1845a
And finally "it don’t mean nothing" Post 1845b
You call this being "succinct"??? You must not be accustomed to people actually reading your posts.
You started at "Baptism has been a vital component of our conversion after our repentance." Post 1827
Then "If at all possible, I believe one should joyously submit to being baptized in water." Post 1838
Followed by "It would be great if everyone got dunked" Post 1845a
And finally "it don’t mean nothing" Post 1845b
You call this being "succinct"??? You must not be accustomed to people actually reading your posts.
no one has not to be water baptized.Is this the "vital" part?
Should?
If I have been baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and not in the name of Jesus only am I not saved?Of course not.
I do not believe that the word "Jesus" must be verbally stated in order to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit or to receive the remission of sins. You may be confusing me with others on this forum.If I have been baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and not in the name of Jesus only am I not saved?
Not sure what to make of this comment or a few others.no one has not to be water baptized.
Oneness Pentecostals are well known for teaching that water baptism must be done "in Jesus' name" ONLY. Interesting article below:I do not believe that the word "Jesus" must be verbally stated in order to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit or to receive the remission of sins. You may be confusing me with others on this forum.
I most certainly do believe that baptism is meant to be the moment we receive the gift of the Holy Spirit and to obtain the remission of sins.
I personally was baptized with the following, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, His Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit".
I am not sure how this is viewed by others but I believe it is acceptable.
So you believe in baptismal regeneration?I do not believe that the word "Jesus" must be verbally stated in order to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit or to receive the remission of sins. You may be confusing me with others on this forum.
I most certainly do believe that baptism is meant to be the moment we receive the gift of the Holy Spirit and to obtain the remission of sins.
I personally was baptized with the following, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, His Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit".
I am not sure how this is viewed by others but I believe it is acceptable.
I find it difficult to respond to such arrogance.I think I see where you might find my statements as contradictory. Each statement is true, but you may see them as paradoxical, similar to these verses:
“For when I am weak, then I am strong.”
“So the last will be first, and the first last.”
“Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.”
“As sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, yet possessing everything.”
Yes.So you believe in baptismal regeneration?
I believe we are saved by grace through faith and not of ourselves; it is a gift of God.Yes.
Do you believe in faith alone regeneration?
This is clearly a red herring statement.It's a lack of belief that causes condemnation, and not the lack of baptism.
I gave you a honest and straight forward yes or no answer to your question.I believe we are saved by grace through faith and not of ourselves; it is a gift of God.
As a result that faith will show its genuine as it will manifest the good works that we have been created to do.
People should be baptised ASAP.