And I have asked the oneness lot to post it and never had a responseI cannot find any verse in the Bible where JESUS said that baptism in my name only saves people
And I have asked the oneness lot to post it and never had a responseI cannot find any verse in the Bible where JESUS said that baptism in my name only saves people
And I have asked the oneness lot to post it and never had a response
He's probably using The story of the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:35-39) demonstrates the order of events: he confessed his faith in Jesus, was then baptized, and received the Holy Spirit for his example.I posted a link to a post where it was plainly stated by wansvic that you must be water baptized or you are not saved. further, that is part of their doctrine so....
here is the post again wherein it is plainly stated that if you are not water baptized you are cut off from the covenant meaning the new covenant/salvation. the same with tongues...no tongues, no salvation. according to their doctrine I was not saved for 13 years even though I was water baptized and most definitely had accepted Christ but had not yet spoken in tongues even though I had never heard of it. These doctrines of the oneness gang are wicked and not biblical imo
"ocean, post: 5510345, member: 333985"]looks like we have a case of wansvic telling someone that if you are not baptized, you are cut off. all the questions asked him are answered by him somewhere even though he refuses to answer now . the reference is to the NT, so no water, no farther is what is being said by wansvic . cut off from the covenant, would be the NT covenant. smh this was in a thread asking the question 'how do you get saved' so obviously wansvic considers water baptism an integral part of salvation
wansvic post 549
God commanded everyone living in the NT to be water baptized in the name of Jesus for the remission of sin. Just as He commanded circumcision of those living in the OT. Those who refuse to believe and obey His command of water baptism will find themselves cut off from the covenant.
we have the answer in wansvics own words so he cannot deny that belief even if he does not answer from now until 2165
Because they believe they have to do something to be Saved, it's like taking our an insurance policy.
I assume therefore that death bed conversions are irrelevant because they have not been baptised in any name at all.I posted a link to a post where it was plainly stated by wansvic that you must be water baptized or you are not saved. further, that is part of their doctrine so....
here is the post again wherein it is plainly stated that if you are not water baptized you are cut off from the covenant meaning the new covenant/salvation. the same with tongues...no tongues, no salvation. according to their doctrine I was not saved for 13 years even though I was water baptized and most definitely had accepted Christ but had not yet spoken in tongues even though I had never heard of it. These doctrines of the oneness gang are wicked and not biblical imo
"ocean, post: 5510345, member: 333985"]looks like we have a case of wansvic telling someone that if you are not baptized, you are cut off. all the questions asked him are answered by him somewhere even though he refuses to answer now . the reference is to the NT, so no water, no farther is what is being said by wansvic . cut off from the covenant, would be the NT covenant. smh this was in a thread asking the question 'how do you get saved' so obviously wansvic considers water baptism an integral part of salvation
wansvic post 549
God commanded everyone living in the NT to be water baptized in the name of Jesus for the remission of sin. Just as He commanded circumcision of those living in the OT. Those who refuse to believe and obey His command of water baptism will find themselves cut off from the covenant.
we have the answer in wansvics own words so he cannot deny that belief even if he does not answer from now until 2165
Millstone comes to mind.They add to what Jesus did for us. It ends up being Jesus obedience & our work of baptism & speaking in tongues = salvation
I don't believe water baptism is a work. It is obedience which shows our identity with Jesus in His death, hence the submersion and then rising out of the water. It is symbolic and I do not see anywhere if you are not baptized you are not saved or if you do not speak in tongues you are not saved.
These doctrines of oneness sound more like what Jesus called burdens and adding to what God said
For the record I am water baptized (was 13 I think) and do have the gift of tongues....around 18 I think.
Frankly, such doctrines TAKE AWAY from what God has given us through His Son. ONLY the sinless blood of Jesus shed on our behalf is acceptable to God as the final sacrifice.
I assume therefore that death bed conversions are irrelevant because they have not been baptised in any name at all.
If they clearly state none is baptised in Jesus name then they are not and cannot be saved.
I'm sure they can wriggle out of it
Millstone comes to mind.
I've been baptised but have not been given the GIFT OF TONGUES.
I think for me this is what saves.Its basically smoke and mirrors. Lets say a person does not believe in the Trinity. Now I don't think that is a good idea, but are they not saved if they have actually accepted Jesus? The problem though, are the other stipulations they introduce for salvation...which the Bible most certainly does not include.
When Jesus said 'It is finished" it was done. Presenting self righteousness, as in I did this or I did that, is not going to be acceptable to God. If those things were righteous in God's view, then why did Jesus have to die
Dear Cameron, The disciples were saved before Pentecost; Pentecost was the moment of outward empowerment by the Holy Spirit, not the beginning of their salvation. God bless you, brother.No need. I've received my limit of condescending replies for the week.
Grace and peace.
They don’t reject it they just have studied more scripture and read things like this teaching them about grace and faithThats the thing isnt it? The thief believed and was forgiven. Why people refuse to accept the saved by grace through faith doctrine intrigues me.
Dear Cameron, Jesus' disciples were already true believers—"saved"—before the Day of Pentecost. Jesus, in His final teachings before His crucifixion, referred to the disciples (excluding Judas) as already "clean" (John 13:10) and described them as branches already in the vine (John 15:3-5), indicating their existing faith and union with Him. The coming of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost was a new, powerful outpouring and equipping for ministry, not the initial moment of their salvation. God bless you, brother.No need. I've received my limit of condescending replies for the week.
Grace and peace.
Dear Cameron, Peter explained to the crowd that this was the fulfilment of prophecy (from Joel), and he urged them: "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.No need. I've received my limit of condescending replies for the week.
Grace and peace.
I have read a number of your posts on the sovereignty of God, I suspect it was more of a Freudian Slip.Good catch. Should have said will not. Jesus will never act unrighteously.
I stand corrected. I obviously had not received my limit of condescending replies for the week.Dear Cameron, Peter explained to the crowd that this was the fulfilment of prophecy (from Joel), and he urged them: "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
God bless you, brother.
Because you are inclined to believe the worst.I have read a number of your posts on the sovereignty of God, I suspect it was more of a Freudian Slip.
What you are labeling condescending is simply people pointing out the flawed reasoning in your understanding of scripture.No need. I've received my limit of condescending replies for the week.
Grace and peace.
Finally:
How Did The Early Church Really Do It?
First, these are not magical incantations. Baptism is not hokus-pokus salvation. Those who insist that Acts 2:38 must be recited in order for the baptism to “work” are guilty of turning baptism into a spell.
But what did the first Christians say as they were baptizing converts? Oneness/Jesus’ Only practitioners say that the book of Acts proves their claim. But if Luke, the writer of Acts, had intended to record word-for-word the exact phrase the baptizer was to utter, then why didn’t he write it the same way every time?
One would think that if there is a precise formula of words that needs to be said in order for baptism to “work,” Luke would have been careful enough to record it that way every time. Luke didn’t report a formula, liturgical phrase, or incantation that was said before every baptism. He noted that these baptisms were performed under the authority of Jesus.
- Acts 2:38 “… in the name of Jesus Christ …”
- 8:16 “… in the name of the Lord Jesus.”
- 10:48 “… in the name of Jesus Christ.”
- 19:5 “ … in the name of the Lord Jesus.”
- 22:16 “… calling on His name.”
The emphasis in every verse is on the person being baptized, not the one doing the baptizing. This is why we don’t read “they were baptized by Paul, who said, ‘in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.’”
But consider Acts 19:2-3. Paul comes to some disciples at Ephesus:
He said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said to him, “No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.” And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” And they said, “Into John’s baptism.”
Isn’t it odd that Paul answers the admission, “we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit,” by blurting, “Into what then were you baptized?”
His response would make no sense, except that Paul can’t understand how they could have heard the baptizer say, “in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit,” and yet claim they’d never heard whether there is a Holy Spirit. As soon as they confess their ignorance about the third Person of the Trinity, Paul knows that something was amiss with their baptisms.
Since this example is for us during the First Church under the leadership of the Apostles isn't this how the process normally goes for anyone saved?He's probably using The story of the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:35-39) demonstrates the order of events: he confessed his faith in Jesus, was then baptized, and received the Holy Spirit for his example.
You may be right.Because you are inclined to believe the worst.