water baptism in Jesus' Name.

[ResidentAlien]

Get 'er Holy Ghost.

Rodney Howard Brown, the so-called "Holy Ghost Bartender" used to say this. At his meetings, when he dispensed the "anointing," he'd say things like "Fill, fill, fill!" and "Git ‘em, Jesus, git ‘em, git ‘em, git ‘em!"

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

Can you give me some scriptures that tell the purpose and reason for water baptism?

Since I know Mark 16 and Matthew 28, the Baptism parts, were ADDED later [we have PROOF] that means, Jesus DID NOT COMMAND to be Water Baptized. So, Water Baptism, comes from the Apostles. Since, Jesus, did not command for it, you have no point to make in this Discussion!

 

[WayneKCobb]

Wrong.

According to Acts 2:38-39, baptism in Jesus' Name is the condition to the fulfilling of a promise of remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Ghost.

How come in these people in Acts 2 were not added to the church until they were baptized? It is because that is when they were forgiven of their sins and given the Holy Spirit.

Wayne

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

How come in these people in Acts 2 were not added to the church until they were baptized? It is because that is when they were forgiven of their sins and given the Holy Spirit.

Wayne

who says they were added after?

 

[WayneKCobb]

Since I know Mark 16 and Matthew 28, the Baptism parts, were ADDED later [we have PROOF] that means, Jesus DID NOT COMMAND to be Water Baptized. So, Water Baptism, comes from the Apostles. Since, Jesus, did not command for it, you have no point to make in this Discussion!

All scripture is inspired by God. Everything the Apostles preached was inspired by God. As one reads through the conversions in the New Testament, they were always baptized the same day that they believed. That is the pattern revealed in the book of Acts.

Thanks,
Wayne

 

[WayneKCobb]

who says they were added after?

Acts 2:40-41 And with many other words he solemnly testified and kept on exhorting them, saying, "Be saved from this perverse generation!" 41 So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls.

It sure seems like the scriptures put added after they were baptized.

In Christ our Lord,
Wayne

 

[heartwashed]

I pray that you convict @BillG for putting an "x" on that, Lord, in Jesus' Name.

I pray you convict @Niki7 for putting an "x" on that, Lord, in Jesus' Name.

 

[Ted01]

Acts 2:40-41 And with many other words he solemnly testified and kept on exhorting them, saying, "Be saved from this perverse generation!" 41 So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls.

It sure seems like the scriptures put added after they were baptized.

In Christ our Lord,
Wayne

Good question!

I think that the more important words are "...had received his word...", (not that baptism is not important).
I see in the situation that the previously, unbelieving people (Jews?) heard and received the Gospel message... it's after that they were baptized and entered into the fellowship of believers.

 

[heartwashed]

Yes, one must be a true believer with the Holy Ghost in order for the promise to apply.



It appears that you are now falsely accusing me of being on the side of the false accuser.

All you had to say was that it doesn't irk you if someone is saved through baptism in Jesus' Name; and I would have taken your word for it.

But as it is, you are evading the question.

And it was a question, not a statement.

And therefore, not an accusation.

Just want to remind everyone of something that was spoken of earlier...

That in Acts 2:37-41, before they were actually baptized and after they repented, Peter told them to "be saved from this untoward generation".

Therefore, they were not saved before they were baptized; even if they did have faith and it was a believer's baptism.

convict @Niki7, Holy Ghost.

 

[heartwashed]

I "un-did" the "x" that I put on because I was acting on my carnal nature... striving against men who are opposed to the truth.

I laughed because your dishonesty seems to know no bounds.

God bless you.

 

[heartwashed]

Your straw man argument below implies that I am taking away from God's word, which is dishonest and not Christ-like.

Just because I don't agree with your interpretation of Acts 2:38-39 does not mean that I plan on cutting those verses out of the Bible.

You didn't just take away from God's word, you took away from it "for" and then added to it "because of".

 

[mailmandan]

According to 1 Peter 3:20-21 baptism is the antitype that now saves us. An antitype is not a type. It is the real thing. And, yes, without Jesus' sacrifice baptism would be meaningless.

The Greek word “antitupon,” as used in I Peter 3: 21, is “an adjective, used as a noun,” and denotes, in the NT, “a corresponding type,” being “said of baptism.” “The circumstances of the flood, the ark and its occupants, formed a type, and baptism forms “a corresponding type,” each setting forth the spiritual realities of the death, burial, and resurrection of believers in their identification with Christ.

It 's not a case of type and antitype, but of two types, that in Genesis, the type, and baptism, the corresponding type.” Noah was saved by the ark “through (via) water.” Water was not the means of their salvation, but the ark. The ark is what both delivered and preserved them, the two aspects of “salvation.” Their “salvation” was typical of the salvation promised to the Christian. It pictured it. So also does Christian baptism picture the death, burial and resurrection of Christ.

By saying, "not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience -through the resurrection of Jesus Christ," Peter guards against saving power to the physical ceremony itself.

 

[heartwashed]

I can confess Christ without being baptized

Your Logic is a fallacy argument.

We confess Christ because of gratitude that he SAVED US.. not so we can be saved..

I didn't say that you can't confess Christ apart from being baptized. I said that baptism is indeed a confession of Christ before men...even to the uttermost, no turning back.

If you confess Him with your mouth only, you can deny Him later with your mouth and you will lose what you gained in confessing Him.

But if you confess Him in baptism, the only way you can lose your salvation is if you are baptized again in another name.

 

[heartwashed]

Well your wrong. Because 22 through 26 occurred AFTER Jesus told Nicodemus HOW to be born again, in where he did not mention baptism

When Moses lifted the serpent on the rod. Did people have to get baptized to be saved? No. they were saved because they had faith

which is exactly what Jesus said

He who BELIEVES is not condemned

No baptism period (although baptism does occure. the baptism of the spirit)

It is in chapter 3...just as verse 5 is in chapter 3 and also speaks of water baptism.

 

[heartwashed]

once again, the english can not contradict the greek.

Right. And I don't believe that it does. Therefore the English is reliable.

 

[heartwashed]

Neither Acts 2:39 or Romans 8:30 teach that baptism in Jesus' name is absolutely necessary for salvation.

Not by themselves; but together, they do teach it.

 

[heartwashed]

Neither Acts 2:39 or Romans 8:30 teach that baptism in Jesus' name is absolutely necessary for salvation. In regards to the general call, Matthew 22:14 - Called (2282 - kletos) in Matthew 22:14 is talking about the general call of the gospel which goes out to all men every time the gospel is preached.

In the Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, we read <Adjective, 2822,kletos> "called, invited," is used, (a) "of the call of the Gospel," Matt. 20:16; 22:14, not there "an effectual call," as in the Epistles, Romans 1:1,6,7; 8:28; 1 Corinthians 1:2,24; Jude 1:1; Revelation 17:14; in Romans 1:7; 1 Corinthians 1:2 the meaning is "saints by calling;" (b) of "an appointment to apostleship," Romans 1:1; 1 Corinthians 1:1.

Called (2564 - kaleo) in Romans 8:30 conveys the idea of an effectual call and emphasizes God's sovereign work. There is a distinction between the called (klhtoi) and the chosen (eklektoi) called out from the called.

Romans 8:30 says ..whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified. ALL of them. Notice how Paul uses the past tense for a future event to stress it's certainty.

You have not adequately answered my argument, sorry.

 

[heartwashed]

your right it does

when we read as written

repent and you will receive the gift of the spirit. and let every one of you (singular) be baptized on the account of the fact you received remission of sin.,

Thats what it says..

Peter did not tell them to do a work of righteousness to be saved..

You reject the rendering of the kjv then...

It has always been my contention that those who do that are heaping to themselves teachers, in the translators of other versions, to tell them what their itching ears want to hear (2 Timothy 4:3).

 

[heartwashed]

It does not even speak of baptismal regeneration.

It does.

Remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Ghost are promised as the result of receiving the ordinance.

 

[heartwashed]

because they repented as peter commanded them

we know this because they recieved his word and believed

41 Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them.

It does not say they were baptised THEN they recieved the spirit..

The Spirit is promised as the result of receiving baptism, read it correctly.

Because I think that you have an unwarranted bias because of the fact that, either you have not been baptized according to Acts 2:38 yourself but want to believe that you are saved; or else you have been baptized and want to believe that loved ones are saved apart from baptism in Jesus' Name.