The command is specific. As such, the reference to household members could only mean those able to make a conscience decision to hear, believe and obey the command.For the adults, yes it does. Then those in the household were also baptized.
The command is specific. As such, the reference to household members could only mean those able to make a conscience decision to hear, believe and obey the command.For the adults, yes it does. Then those in the household were also baptized.
The account specifies that the Holy Ghost is what was being received when Paul laid hands on them.I find it more likely that the laying on of the Apostles hands provided the individuals with miraculous gifts (as we see at Pentecost). There is no reason to suggest that these people in Acts 19 did not receive the indwelling spirit at baptism, especially when that is the promise given in Acts 2:38. I don’t think its a good idea to nullify a clear didactic message and promise given in Scripture because of a narrative that doesn’t specifically negate that promise
Note Peter's message in Acts 2:38-39, it indicates that those who repent and submit to water baptism shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. It does not specifically state receiving the Holy Ghost will occur at that exact moment. However, it is a promise that it will occur.I am not following the connections you are making here. How can you say water baptism and receiving the Holy Spirit do not happen at the same time And then cite Acts 2:38 when that text specifically says the hearers should be baptized “so that“ they might receive forgiveness and the Holy Spirit? It seems to me that the whole point of what he is saying is that their response of baptism carries with it the promise of forgiveness and the Holy Spirit. Not sure how you can read that command and take away that the receiving of the Spirit is an entirely separate event or time. Care to elaborate?
also it seems you are emphasizing the NAME a lot. Are you arguing for modalism/Sabellianism?
Oneness interpretation??? Pointing to things outside of scripture in an effort to prove or disprove what scripture clearly reveals is futile. Interpretation plays no part in this instance. There is no contradiction between Jesus' words in Matthew 28:19, and the actions of His apostles; they are in total agreement. Jesus gave the command and the apostles obeyed Him.It's not a matter of whether they obeyed Him or not. If you're asking why did they baptize in the name of Jesus in contradiction to His command in Matthew 28:19, my answer is I don't know, and I'm okay with that. I have some ideas, but that's all they are--theories. To me it's an open question. But I'm at peace with the trinity, so I have no interest in forcing a Oneness interpretation into the text that isn't there.
We don't have any indication that they weren't. Most households include children.We dont have any indication that children were baptized.
Many churches refuse to accept as valid a baptism that wasn't upon a profession of faith and/or with immersion. That's my beef.I go to a church that sprinkles and immerses. I don't believe in sprinkling, but so what? Don't be so picky.
You're reading something into the text that isn't there.The command is specific. As such, the reference to household members could only mean those able to make a conscience decision to hear, believe and obey the command.
Simply because God has a usual manner in performing salvation doesn't mean He is limited to it.You're reading something into the text that isn't there.
Interpretation plays no part in this instance.
The following is in response to your statement concerning, "Quibbling over the right words" This is unfortunately the problem. People don't realize the significance of obeying the command to use the name of Jesus. It matters because it was Jesus who in the flesh was crucified, died, and buried for all humanity.One thing I can say, they obeyed His command to baptize, that's the main thing. Before we start quibbling over the right words that are to be said, we should first start making sure people are baptized when they first believe and confess Christ.
Partial obedience is not enough, in fact it's disobedience. (1 Sam. 15)One thing I can say, they obeyed His command to baptize, that's the main thing. Before we start quibbling over the right words that are to be said, we should first start making sure people are baptized when they first believe and confess Christ.
The text couldn't be clearer. The individuals had to make a conscience decision to repent and be baptized. This is not something infants are capable of doing.You're reading something into the text that isn't there.
Sadly that is why so many denominations exist in the world. Rather than accept and pursue what God has established in His word people preach only those things they are willing to accept.Simply because God has a usual manner in performing salvation doesn't mean He is limited to it.
I'm not talking about going outside God's word. That's what you are actually doing by reading more into scripture than is there.Sadly that is why so many denominations exist in the world. Rather than accept and pursue what God has established in His word people preach only those things they are willing to accept.
According to Jesus everyone is going to be judged by the word. (John 12:48) God doesn't change. His word is forever settled. Man is the one that must believe and obey it.
I'm not talking about going outside God's word. That's what you are actually doing by reading more into scripture than is there.
Was John the Baptist saved in the womb?
John the Baptist died prior to the institution of the New Testament.I'm not talking about going outside God's word. That's what you are actually doing by reading more into scripture than is there.
Was John the Baptist saved in the womb?
Salvation hasn't changed.“Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. ( he wasn’t born again yet but keep reading about John )
And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force. For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.
And if ye will receive it, this is Elijah , which was for to come. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.”
Matthew 11:11-15 KJV
“And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elijah must first come?
And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elijah truly shall first come, and restore all things. But I say unto you, That Elijah is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. ( he was beheaded for his witness of Christ )
Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them. Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.”
Matthew 17:10-13 KJV
And so John the Baptist / Elijah would be in this group
“And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.”
Revelation 20:4-5 KJV
Indeed belief often is hindered by trying to interpret what’s plain o to something it isn’t it causes us to fail to believe what’s plainI disagree.
He didn't die prior to the Abrahamic covenant...God will provide Himself a Lamb.John the Baptist died prior to the institution of the New Testament.