The Error is Baptism in Jesus name only for salvation

[Magenta]

Then he's in big trouble. He certainly didn't have time to offer sacrifices for his sin.

It's an assumption to say whether the thief on the cross was or was not baptized. Either way, we are not told.

 

[Cameron143]

You know they were but we know as Jews under the Law had Yeshua waited 100 more years before coming they would have been like the other Hebrews before them and to Adam/Seth.

He didn't wait. He is present.

 

[Cameron143]

It's an assumption to say whether the thief on the cross was or was not baptized. Either way, we are not told.

And yet...he was with Jesus in Paradise that day.

 

[Lamar]

The thief on the cross wasnt baptised at all. Baptism doesnt save anyone. People are saved by grace through faith.

Saved without the remission of sins? I doubt that.

"Saved by grace through faith" is a good bumper sticker but it is not the Gospel.

You may think you can be saved without the remission of sins, but that is like being saved without the blood being applied to the door posts. Impossible.

There is no salvation without the remission of sins therefore there is no salvation without water baptism.

 

[DeanM]

Saved without the remission of sins? I doubt that.

"Saved by grace through faith" is a good bumper sticker but it is not the Gospel.

You may think you can be saved without the remission of sins, but that is like being saved without the blood being applied to the door posts. Impossible.

There is no salvation without the remission of sins therefore there is no salvation without water baptism.

So. Why did Jesus tell the thief he would be with Him in paradise?

 

[Lamar]

And yet...he was with Jesus in Paradise that day.

If Jesus tells you something it is going to happen, regardless of what happened in the past, it is going to happen.

This is why the Thief on the Cross does not apply and is a red herring.

 

[Magenta]

And yet...he was with Jesus in Paradise that day.

And yet, that is beside the point.

 

[DeanM]

If Jesus tells you something it is going to happen, regardless of what happened in the past, it is going to happen.

This is why the Thief on the Cross does not apply and is a red herring.

There it is. Aaron said you would show up.

 

[Cameron143]

Saved without the remission of sins? I doubt that.

"Saved by grace through faith" is a good bumper sticker but it is not the Gospel.

You may think you can be saved without the remission of sins, but that is like being saved without the blood being applied to the door posts. Impossible.

There is no salvation without the remission of sins therefore there is no salvation without water baptism.

How did OT saints have their sins remitted?

 

[Ouch]

When you baptize disciples into the name of the Father, “SON” and Holy Ghost, you are baptizing them into Jesus. . Jesus is the “Son.” Since this was a command of Jesus and He said do it this way, it makes no difference if you say they are “titles” or names. Obviously, Jesus did not care or make a distinction. Unless you can show a scripture that forbids doing what Jesus said to do in Matthew 28:19 then you are making a distinction and. A Prohibition where Jesus did not make one. Matthew 28:19 must be in harmony with all of the scriptures you cite trying to prove its ONLY. in Jesus name, or we have a contradiction in the bible and I don’t accept that. If the Bible contradicts itself then we cannot believe it or trust it. So, I know Matthew 28:19 is true and if Someone baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, they are doing exactly what Jesus said to do. How can that be wrong? God is not trying to trick us. To say that is wrong is to contradict Jesus, question His authority, and that makes you an “unbeliever” in the Son of God.

I believe your doctrine is erroneous; making a distinction
where God has not made one and thereby causing scriptures to contradict other scriptures, which that within itself would prove a fallacy in your argument.

The assumption that “one”, in John 10, is talking about only one personality in the Godhead, instead of three, also Is wrong; as Jesus explains what He means in chapter 17 in His prayer to the Father when He says He wants all of his followers to be “one” just like He and the Father are “one.” JUST LIKE … in the same way…and He is NOT talking about having just 1 follower in the whole world that represents All disciples. But that is what He would be saying if your interpretation of “one” is correct. It is not. Jesus means He and the Father are “one” in agreement, unity, in purpose, teachings, and beliefs. They do not disagree on anything. We use the same meaning today and ascribe it to two people or a group of people who are “one” in unity or agreement.




Ok

In Matthew 28:19 JESUS was speaking to HIS disciples.

Since there is NO recorded act of being baptized "in the name of the father, the son and the Holy Ghost" AND ONLY in JESUS name then why would ANYONE baptized any other way???

Colossians 3:17 And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.

No where does HIS word say different, if names didn't matter those who were baptized by John wouln't have to be rebapitzed.

They do agee with each other, becaues they are one.

1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

 

[Cameron143]

If Jesus tells you something it is going to happen, regardless of what happened in the past, it is going to happen.

This is why the Thief on the Cross does not apply and is a red herring.

Jesus acted unrighteously?

 

[Lamar]

So. Why did Jesus tell the thief he would be with Him in paradise?

Because he was.

The same reason that the paralyzed man was forgiven of his sins.

Jesus is God, He is not bound by anything. He can even forgive the devil without baptism.

But we are bound by obedience to the Gospel.

 

[Lamar]

There it is. Aaron said you would show up.

And I knew you were going to show up.

 

[CS1]

While the apostles were certainly not clear on many things, they had received revelation spiritually before. When Peter referred to Jesus as the Christ and the Son of the living God in Matthew 16, Jesus says Peter received this of the Father. Receiving revelation wasn't exactly new to them. Further, as Jesus identifies this with the building of the church, it's difficult to believe the disciples weren't already saved.
I also agree with@Aaron56 that it was not the promise of the Father. So what was the purpose?

You are correct. Jesus said to Peter Flesh, and blood did not reveal this to you. Yet, in a few verses later in the same Chapter, Jesus rebukes Peter and says, 'Get behind me, Satan.'

 

[Lamar]

How did OT saints have their sins remitted?

Are you looking for a loophole to the Gospel?

John 21:22
Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain until I return, what is that to you? You follow Me!”

I suggest you focus on the Gospel and leave these questions to God.

 

[Cameron143]

And yet, that is beside the point.

It is to your argument, but not the argument of another poster. He contend that the thief has not been baptized, but instead says Jesus decided to forgive him anyway. In effect, he has Jesus acting unrighteously by forgiving sins apart from fulfilling all that he believes is necessary for sins to be righteously forgiven.

 

[Lamar]

Jesus acted unrighteously?

I have no idea what you mean.

 

[CS1]

The Comforter was dwelling with the disciples; Jesus' Spirit. But after Jesus departed He would send the Spirit to come and dwell inside of them.

"And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, (He's currently dwelling with you) and shall be in you. (And in the future He will be IN you)
I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.
Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.
20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you." John 14:16-20

If the Comforter was with them or in them, why Did Jesus say I must GO! or the Comforter will not come, and I will send him

John 14 and 15 are evident?

 

[Cameron143]

You are correct. Jesus said to Peter Flesh, and blood did not reveal this to you. Yet, in a few verses later in the same Chapter, Jesus rebukes Peter and says, 'Get behind me, Satan.'

The latter doesn't negate the former; it simply shows more revelation is necessary.
So...what did Jesus actually do in breathing on the disciples? Simply greater revelation?

 

[CS1]

Are these verses expressed in the a definitive mode or general mode?

You know the answer, be honest.



"Contextually"??? Maybe in your world of reasoning.

Paul is rather point on about the purpose of baptism in Romans 6.

Here are the verses:

Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

There is no "context" that makes water baptism an optional "symbolic and public" ritual as you are attempting to label it.

Who said Water Baptism was optional? Please show me where I said that? My point is water Baptism in the name of the F, S, and HS is valid. What are you talking about? Creating false Narratives?