water baptism in Jesus' Name.

[heartwashed]

So being baptized 'in Jesus name' (in of itself) is supposed to be a magical formula for salvation? Those who were baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is the wrong formula and people who are not baptized by the specific formula 'in Jesus name' will not be saved according to you?

Remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Ghost are absolutely promised to those who repent and receive baptism in Jesus' Name.

So, if you have any doubt about whether or not you have these things, it is a good step to take.

I have noticed in my conversations with people that most who have not been baptized in His name, also deny the literal rendering of 1 John 3:9, 5:18. I would say that this is because in their own experience, their sins are not in remission.

 

[heartwashed]

Romans 8:30 is in regards to the 'effectual call' and not the general call. (Matthew 22:14)

Please expound on this a little bit more. How does your statement mean that baptism in Jesus' Name is not necessary for salvation, when you compare Acts 2:39 to Romans 8:30. Is the "effectual call" narrower or broader than the "general call"? And since it is narrower, I assume you are saying that Acts 2:39 is referring to the broader "general call". Therefore, since Romans 8:30 is speaking of a narrower call, which is included within the broader call of Acts 2:39, it follows that in Romans 8:30, those who are called and therefore justified are indeed among those who are defined as "as many as the Lord our God shall call" in Acts 2:39. And therefore if one is not called in the narrower call of Romans 8:30, they also are not called in the broader call of Acts 2:39. And therefore my contention stands, that:

Those who are not called are not justified and have not been predestinated; and that salvation is promised as a conditional promise in Acts 2:38-39 to "as many as the Lord our God shall call".

 

[heartwashed]

That's all good and well, but why did you stick water baptism in the title? They are not the same thing. Water baptism is simply a ritual of remembrance (sacrament) that is performed later on. Salvation is based soley upon faith in the shed blood of Jesus Christ.

See post #98.

 

[heartwashed]

So the fruit following conversion and water baptism is being crucified as a thief, blaspheming, mocking and shaking your head at Jesus? Again, highly unlikely. Those who try to get around the fact that the thief on the cross was saved through faith without having the opportunity to be being water baptized afterwards will either try to assume that the thief was already baptized or that baptism was not necessary for salvation under the OT mandate because Jesus had not died yet. The thief was obviously converted while still hanging on the cross and died that very same day.

As I said before, sanctification does not always come immediately the moment a person is saved.

My wife's brother is a Christian, yet he keeps getting sent back to jail for whatever reason. Sanctification has not yet set in to his system as a believer.

The fruit of salvation, in the thief, came, when the thief affirmed that Jesus was coming into a kingdom when He was obviously dying next to him. That was a statement of true faith.

 

[heartwashed]

Absolute bias and highly unlikely. He was being crucified as a thief, blaspheming, mocking and shaking his head at Jesus prior to having a change of mind (repentance) and placing his faith in Jesus Christ for salvation while still hanging on the cross.

See above post.

 

[heartwashed]

What Scripture has led you to that conclusion? You think he was just being hung out to dry?

Luke 7:29-30.

 

[heartwashed]

My point was once again, scripture IS consistent, and it doesn't matter: either is OK, BUT, you'll find, as I pointed out, that baptizers of the biblical record said neither prior to their baptizing of persons. The baptizer DID NOT say "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost", or, "I baptize you in the name of Jesus Christ" prior to their immersion of individuals. They said nothing. Only those getting baptized said something or were told to such as the Ethiopian eunuch and Paul. Once there's belief, confession of belief, and repentance, the only thing remaining is immersion. No additional words of the baptizer are necessary as evidenced by the scriptures. Baptism is by the authority of God which is what is meant by "in the name of".

Of course, Peter made it clear, in Acts 2:38, that those who would be baptized by him that day would be baptized "in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins".

 

[heartwashed]

A Chuck Smith Disciple?

Actually, some of his teaching is abhorrent to me; such as how all of his pastors teach that "perfection" in holy scripture is actually "maturity" or "completeness".

 

[heartwashed]

Calvary Chapel, literally begins a new built church building and congregation with Genesis 1:1 and will continue all the way through the entire Bible Verse for Verse, Chapter for Chapter Genesis to Revelation and when done with Revelation will flip to Genesis 1:1 and begins again. And will do that for the entire existence of the Church.

I can see how they Baptize Jesus Name and still believe Triune God.

The way they structurise the presentation of God and His Holy Word Verse by Verse eventually takes us to Book of Acts where we literally read 4 times Baptized in Water in Jesus Name. Of course, they would just do the same as the Bible shows how people were being Baptized in those days.

Other than OUTSIDE SOURCES, the Bible does not show us anywhere, where people are being Baptized trinity.

Actually, Calvary Chapel does not use any name when baptizing.

I received Acts 2:38 salvation in a Oneness church. I just didn't continue to attend there.

 

[heartwashed]

Petet said Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved. Paul said have faith and confess the Lord Jesus Christ and youmshall be saved .

Jesus said to call on me, and you shall be saved. He that believes in ME shall be saved. Ezekiel 36:25-27

your exegesis of Ezekiel is partly correct you must read a few verses before


in verse 25 the first word is ' Then " which is a verb meaning something was done first before the "then" was said God is doing something here to the Jews and it is bring them back to The land God said they would have.

So, how does that change the meaning of the rest of the passage (verses 25-27)?

 

[heartwashed]

really let read shall we



Verse 20 says

20 who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water.


Are you saying the eight souls were saved through water means baptism? because it doesn't again. Verse 20 is speaking of Noah, who was saved by God in the ARK as they went through the flood. iF you want to speak of verse 21 ok let's talk about that. FYI God saved Noah, not baptism.

Now verse 21 says :


21 There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,


The word ANTITPE means a symbol or represents something: that is the resurrection of Jesus Christ, AS Paul said in Roman 6:1-4

1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? 3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?

4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

The ark most certainly went under water and then came up out of it.

And yes, the scripture in question teaches us that we are saved through the antitype or symbol.

 

[heartwashed]

wrong

Please elaborate as to why you think that it is wrong.

 

[heartwashed]

Baptism doesn't save you, and the ones who are wrong on that period.

Peter and paul are not saying different things about Baptism. NOR did Jesus so sorry you're in error.

There is an absolute promise in holy scripture, that if one repents and is baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, salvation (remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Ghost) will follow (Acts 2:38-39).

 

[heartwashed]

they don't

We will have to agree to disagree;

And if baptism does in fact save, you will be held accountable for discouraging others from being baptized.

And also for not having been baptized in the name of Jesus, if you haven't been!

 

[heartwashed]

your doctrine is Oness and is errored to.

Nope. For I believe in three distinct Persons within the triune Godhead.

 

[heartwashed]

11 This is the ‘stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.’ 12 Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”


Peter did not even mention water baptism to them.

Because he didn't need to. he had mentioned it previously, in Acts 2:38.

The Holy Ghost hermeneutic is comparing scripture with scripture (1 Corinthians 2:13).

 

[heartwashed]

17 But so that it spreads no further among the people, let us severely threaten them, that from now on they speak to no man in this name.”


18 So they called them and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus.

19 But Peter and John answered and said to them, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge. 20 For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.”

21 So when they had further threatened them, they let them go, finding no way of punishing them, because of the people, since they all glorified God for what had been done.


The context of Baptism in the Nae of Jesus was done in opposition to the command they received.

Actually, Acts 2:38 comes before the passage in question.

 

[heartwashed]

we can't add to the scriptures. Nothing in Acts chapter 9 says Paul was baptized in Jesus' name. YOu assume that.

Yes, we do. Because in just about every instance where a person was baptized in Acts, it was in the name of the Lord Jesus. Why would the disciples depart from that protocol with Paul only?

 

[CS1]

As the Greek word for "and" is "kai" which can be translated "even;" thus we have the following verses rendered,

1Jo 5:6, This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water <even> blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.
1Jo 5:7, For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
1Jo 5:8, And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, <even> the water, <even> the blood: and these three agree in one.

Jesus is the word water speaks of his life. The Blood speaks a better word than that of Able's as the book of Hebrews says.

 

[CS1]

So, how does that change the meaning of the rest of the passage (verses 25-27)?

believe o the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved. Baptism doesn't save you.