Saved by Water

[BillG]

For the record I don't have that person on ignore. So your accusations about me are unfounded. I have no problem backing up what I share with the word.

Pointing people to what God's word says about water baptism is far profitable than placing trust in information gathered from Internet sites. Sadly people are already following a man made tradition begun by the Catholic Church rather than obeying the God-given command. Anyone can have an opinion. But it's God's word that provides and confirms truth by 2-3 witnessing scriptures.


"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." 2 Tim 3:16-17

Firstly I did make an accusation against you.
Said persons including me assumed you had put on ignore because no response to questions asked of you were not responded to.

Now very interesting you seem to reject above than look at Gods word than placing trust in information gathered from internet sites

Yet you said to me

Sadly many are unaware they are being told to follow a man made tradition begun around 325 A.D. For those who are interested, an Internet search will confirm this to be true.

Hmmm

 

[Wansvic]

Haven't you been following the discussion in this thread? wansvic claims that one must be baptized "in the name of Jesus" repeatedly.

Yet, he refuses to address Matt 28:19, where Jesus doesn't mention His own name when He said "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Since he makes a point about the actual name "Jesus", what does he do with Matt 28:19? He ignores it, since there is no specific names for either the Father or Spirit.

Many pastors quote Matt 28:19 exactly when they baptize others.

So, what's "mean" or "arrogant" to call out a phony?

As I've stated many times Jesus said to baptize in a singular name. (Matt. 28:19) And since we see that the apostles never baptized using the phrase Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is apparent that Jesus did not intend for it to be done that way.

It is easily understood that Jesus meant to baptize in His name. How? Because every water baptism is administered in His name. Remember Paul said the Corinthians should have understood they were being water baptized in the name of the one that was crucified for them. (1 Cor. 1:13)

 

[FreeGrace2]

I answered you in post 737. In addition, the verse in Matt. 28:19 is not a record of an actual water baptism. Jesus told those present to baptize in a singular name.

Prove this, please. EVERY English translation on bible hub.com has "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit".

Where do you get this "singular name" business?

We can see what that name was upon doing a search of every detailed baptism in scripture. And one way to know if a scripture is referring to water baptism is that it is done in the name of the one who was crucified for all; the Lord Jesus.

What you continue to reject is the truth that water baptism is a symbol of a real baptism, which is a real identification.

1 Cor 10:1-5 proves this. Explain how the Israelites were "baptized INTO Moses and INTO the sea", since you do a knee jerk reflex every time you read "baptize" in Scripture.

 

[Wansvic]

I knew you would say that

are you also a 'Name only" adherent? also known as Oneness doctrine? you believe that Jesus is the name of God....well you must be oneness Pentecostal or similar if that is the case

so now you are saying even though we are baptized as per scripture, IT STILL AIN'T GOOD ENOUGH



ok....the name....oneness Pentecostal speak



for that matter, most referrals to baptism DO NOT MENTION ANYONE'S name. you must think we have all just crawled out from under a rock and do not know anything

JESUS said:

19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

of course folks like you like to claim that was not in the original text

however:
Since something like the full text of Matthew 28:19 is found in the Didache (AD 50-70 at the earliest and generally early second century at the latest), is alluded to twice by Tertullian (d. 225) in On Baptism and Against Praxeas, and by several other church fathers before Nicea, Nicea (c. 325) couldn't have added it.
– Frank Luke
Jul 23 '14 at 18:34

so don't bother with your objections

I don't, nor have I ever stated Matthew 28:19 was not in the original text. My point is that many fail to see that Jesus gave the apostles a command in that verse. And the apostles obeyed that command by baptizing in His name.

I share this out of genuine concern for others because, yes, I believe everything in God's word is there for a specific reason. And if we don't know what it actually states we can be deceived. We are told to study the scriptures for in them is found the truth.

 

[Wansvic]

...for that matter, most referrals to baptism DO NOT MENTION ANYONE'S name. you must think we have all just crawled out from under a rock and do not know anything...

Would you please clarify what you mean by this statement?

 

[FreeGrace2]

If one truly believes God raised Jesus from the dead they will be saved. The question is does that salvation happen immediately?

Jesus answers that question in John 5:24 - “Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes (present tense) him who sent me has (present tense) eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life.

Notice the present tense for "believes" and "has". I even color coded them for ease of explanation.

When the red word "believes" occurs, the believer POSSESSES eternal life. At that moment. Both are present tense, so that means that the very moment one believes, they possess eternal life.

So, now the question: can a person possess eternal life yet still be unsaved? The very obvious answer is of course NOT.

The possession of eternal life and salvation go together. You cannot have one without the other. Or, if you disagree, please show me any Scripture that makes clear that they don't go together. iow, show me any person who possesses eternal life YET is not saved, or show me any person who is saved YET does not have eternal life from Scripture.

That will settle the issue.

Or, does believing naturally result in obedience to what God's word says is required of everyone?

What do you do with Romans 1:16 - For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile.

Paul couldn't be more clear. Salvation is by believing the gospel. Not water baptism.

Please bare with me and read the following because I believe Jesus, Peter and Paul give much insight. Keep in mind that in order to be saved one's sins must be remitted and that Holy Ghost must come to dwell within the believer.

We know that the Holy Spirit indwells WHEN a person believes in Christ.

Acts 11-
14 He will bring you a message through which you and all your household will be saved.’
15 “As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning.
16 Then I remembered what the Lord had said: ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’
17 So if God gave them the same gift he gave us who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could stand in God’s way?”

Notice Paul's reference to the gospel below, it states that the righteousness of God is REVEALED from faith to faith. One step of faith, leads to the next, and the next, etc. Example; belief, repentance, etc...

Rom 1:16-17
"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith."

The first steps a believer takes does not result in automatic salvation.

According to Jesus' own words in John 5:24 (see above), yes it does.

Believers receive their spiritual rebirth through obedience to God's commands

You have failed to prove this from Scripture. All you do is repeat yourself but you have NO evidence from Scripture.

Paul's comment about working out our own salvation with fear and trembling speaks to this truth. (Php 2:12)

Paul was referring to the present tense of salvation in this verse. Apparently you are not familiar with the 3 tenses of salvation.

1. Past tense salvation – justification (saved from the penalty of sin)

2. present salvation – sanctification (saved from the power of sin)

3. future salvation – glorification (saved from the presence of sin)

All 3 tenses are in view when discussing salvation in the "big picture". But Paul was specifically referring to one's sanctification as they live their life on earth. iow, he was speaking about spiritual growth.

 

[BillG]

My question pertained to the importance of being water baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Not of water baptism in and of itself.

My question was as follows:
Why does the biblical record show everyone being water baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus if there is no significance to it?

Very sad indeed that you believe that someone who is baptised per what Jesus said in Matthew 38 is not saved because the word Jesus is not used.
Genuine believers who love God and have been baptised and spend the rest of their lives wanting to be like Jesus and will be like Jesus and manifest fruit of the Holy Spirit.

Yet you say they are not saved because when baptised the name Jesus is not used?

Romans 10:8-13
8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith which we preach): 9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him. 13 For “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”

Simple example if you want to respond to.

I'm sat in church one day, not a believer but been invited.
I am moved and convicted by the sermon and believe what Paul is saying above.

I thank God that I am forgiven of the sin of unbelief in Jesus ( you know Jesus said this before he died?

Now the next day I die.
Am I saved because I was not baptised?

I proposed a scenario that you did not respond per the above.

So I ask you again.

In your church if someone comes to Jesus do you baptise them straight away in the name of Jesus?

DOES YOUR CHURCH DO THAT?

 

[FreeGrace2]

My question pertained to the importance of being water baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Not of water baptism in and of itself.

This is a silly road to go down.

Why would you suppose that believers are being baptized "in the name of water baptism in and of itself" anyway?

Do you know of anyone that has said this, or that you have witnessed?

My question was as follows:
Why does the biblical record show everyone being water baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus if there is no significance to it?

Your question assumes others don't think there is "any significance" to water baptism. Again, where in the world do you get that?

But the significance of water baptism has NOTHING to do with getting saved.

Christians SHOULD identify themselves as Christians by being water baptism. It's a testimony of their faith.

 

[Wansvic]

Once again

You do not tell people they can d nothing’’then tell them they MUST do something

They will laugh you out of the room

Evidently my communication skills are not up to par. Because what you think I mean is not what I was attempting to convey.
Anyway, what did you think of the points made in the post?

 

[FreeGrace2]

As I've stated many times Jesus said to baptize in a singular name. (Matt. 28:19)

I don't care how many times you state something. Where do you get the "singular name" from? Please show your evidence.

It is easily understood that Jesus meant to baptize in His name.

This is pure presumption.

How? Because every water baptism is administered in His name. Remember Paul said the Corinthians should have understood they were being water baptized in the name of the one that was crucified for them. (1 Cor. 1:13)

So you have a problem with the words "in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit" then???

Why? I've never seen any baptism where this phrase that includes the entire Trinity wasn't included.

 

[Wansvic]

yea way or um
'ya-way "gods grace more important then procedure cause it about love not law [law = method]

The command to repent and be water baptized is a requirement of those in the NT. They have nothing to do with the OT law. That deception is what causes people to reject there significance in God's plan.

 

[Icedaisey]

This is what I asked for:
"Please cite the post # and the exact words that you are judging as "mean and arrogant"."

Are you confused as to what I asked for? And since you seem to enjoy "piling on", go ahead and cite the post # where I agreed with you.


Well, that depends on how you respond to this.

If you can prove your claim, then of course I will. But if you CAN'T prove your claim, you know, with actual evidence, then we will all know who DOES owe someone an apology.

So, there it is. I'm willing to apologize if you can prove your claim.

Are you willing to apologize if you can't prove your claim?

Lord.

When you don't recall what you wrote, you're confused.

And unless you've been diagnosed MPD, there is no we. You're only able to speak on your own behalf.

Here's how you remember what you said. Click the links beside

I was also told I needed to be baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost so I obeyed. However, years later someone pointed out the actual scripture in Matthew 28:19. And asked me one question. What is the NAME? I immediately saw that Jesus had indeed specified the use of a name. What name was Jesus talking about?

Peter, and Paul, as well as others mentioned the need to use the name of Jesus in water baptism. (1 Cor. 1:13, Acts 19:1-6, Acts 2:38) Since not once was the phrase of Father, Son and Holy Ghost ever used in recorded water baptisms, it became apparent that Jesus was indeed referring to His own name. I accepted that truth because it was confirmed by at least 2-3 scriptures and was rebaptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Jesus statement that unless a man is born again he cannot SEE the kingdom was something I immediately understood. (John 3:3) Comprehension of scripture went from night to day. Praise God! This truth is what compels me to point out what scripture actually says about water baptism. God's commands are specific for a reason. Sadly many are unaware they are being told to follow a man made tradition begun around 325 A.D. For those who are interested, an Internet search will confirm this to be true.

You point out something I think many don't realize is there, or overlook, thinking the name is, the father, the son and the holy ghost.

There had never been three separate distinct persons in heaven.

If, when, God, in his word, said there is only one and no other and beside him there is no savior, and someone says they believe the Bible is the word of God , they must believe , take God at and in his word, that he is one.

Therefore, what you observed is crucial to having clarity in this divine relationship.

"Baptize in the name of....the father, the son, and the holy spirit."

The name. Not names.
Therefore, what is that one name?

Theos, is the primary name used in scripture and from the Greek word means, God.

That is not the only name of course. I think this is a great article that informs study of this subject.

The names of God

Not so. It's Yeshua.

The New Testament was written in Greek. The Hebrew name, Yeshua translates into Greek as Iēsous . Iēsous translates into the English spelling, Jesus.

When the angel appeared to Mary to inform her she was highly favored by God to bring him, the Messiah, into the world she was told to name her son, Immanuel. The angel then told her that name translates to, God with us.
Can't get more clear than that. God, with us.
In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God and the word was God. And the word became flesh and dwelt among us.

 

[Icedaisey]

I don't care how many times you state something. Where do you get the "singular name" from? Please show your evidence.

Show your evidence for the individual names each : Father, the son, and the holy spirit.

This is pure presumption.

No, that's scripture.

So you have a problem with the words "in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit" then???

Why? I've never seen any baptism where this phrase that includes the entire Trinity wasn't included.

Actually, the problem is with those who don't read the passage correctly so as to understand what was being communicated was a singular name for one God.

 

[rayzor]

The command to repent and be water baptized is a requirement of those in the NT. They have nothing to do with the OT law. That deception is what causes people to reject there significance in God's plan.

Wansvic same god and it never did. that's a secret to most.Things like grace mercy justice love faith.The law was made 4 us not us 4 the laws.It is an abomination to god for the law to be exalted above grace...old or new testament.

 

[FreeGrace2]

FreeGrace2 said:
This is what I asked for:
"Please cite the post # and the exact words that you are judging as "mean and arrogant"."

Are you confused as to what I asked for? And since you seem to enjoy "piling on", go ahead and cite the post # where I agreed with you.

If you can prove your claim, then of course I will. But if you CAN'T prove your claim, you know, with actual evidence, then we will all know who DOES owe someone an apology.

So, there it is. I'm willing to apologize if you can prove your claim.

Are you willing to apologize if you can't prove your claim?

Lord.

When you don't recall what you wrote, you're confused.

Uh, let's NOT try to change the subject. You have been asked to prove your claim. And you come up with this limp response.

I have given you a CLEAR ROAD to drive home (prove) your claim, and yet you refuse to drive down it.

Why is that?

And unless you've been diagnosed MPD, there is no we. You're only able to speak on your own behalf.

Quit trying to keep changing the subject.

Here's how you remember what you said. Click the links beside

So, this is what follows this comment in your post:
Wansvic said:
I was also told I needed to be baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost so I obeyed. However, years later someone pointed out the actual scripture in Matthew 28:19. And asked me one question. What is the NAME? I immediately saw that Jesus had indeed specified the use of a name. What name was Jesus talking about?

So, this shows who is REALLY confused; that be you. I'm NOT wansvic, in case you're still not clear.

There had never been three separate distinct persons in heaven.

I guess you reject God's Word then.

Gen 1-
26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

Gen 3-
22 And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

Thank you for your anti Trinity opinion, but I'll stick with the Word of God over your opinion.

If, when, God, in his word, said there is only one and no other and beside him there is no savior, and someone says they believe the Bible is the word of God , they must believe , take God at and in his word, that he is one.

It is the Trinity that is "One".

"Baptize in the name of....the father, the son, and the holy spirit."

The name. Not names.
Therefore, what is that one name?

Jesus never said there was "one name". You and wansvic really don't read Scripture very carefully.

"in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit" refers to the Trinity, or the Godhead, obviously.

So, please answer this: to whom was Jesus prayer to when Scripture says He prayed to His Father?

And to whom was Jesus referring when He taught His disciples to pray this: "Our Father, who art in heaven"?

 

[FreeGrace2]

FreeGrace2 said:
I don't care how many times you state something. Where do you get the "singular name" from? Please show your evidence.

Show your evidence for the individual names each : Father, the son, and the holy spirit.

I don't have to; it's quite obvious to rational believers.

Jesus was telling His disciples to baptize in the name of the Trinity.

Actually, the problem is with those who don't read the passage correctly so as to understand what was being communicated was a singular name for one God.

Then I won't bore you with the fact that God's name is in the plural in many verses.

 

[Wansvic]

I want to point out something to you. You've noted that Paul baptized the 12 disciples in Acts 19 in Ephesus. Here's a fact that you need to explain. in v.5 is the water baptism. But, in v.6 Paul lays hands on them and THEN they receive the Holy Spirit.

Also, Acts 20:20,21
20 You know that I have not hesitated to preach anything that would be helpful to you but have taught you publicly and from house to house.
21 I have declared to both Jews and Greeks that they must turn to God in repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus.

From Paul. There is NO mention of baptism at all. This aligns exactly with 1 Cor 1:17 - For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with wisdom and eloquence, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

Receiving the Holy Ghost is not tied to water baptism in any way. Both experiences are required. However, there is no specific sequence in receiving them. We see this truth in records detailing both experiences. Some Jews and Gentiles received the Holy Ghost first and got water baptized afterward. (Acts 2, 10) While others' experienced it in reverse. The Samaritans got water baptized first and later (possibly a day or two) they received the Holy Ghost, and Paul water baptized the Ephesus disciples and afterward they received the Holy Ghost. We can be confident that both water baptism and receiving the Holy Ghost are both required regardless of the sequence. How? As expressed above and knowing God's truth concerning any given subject will always be confirmed by at least 2-3 scripture witnesses.

I looked up Paul's account in Acts 20 because I wasn't sure about the context. What I found pointed to something that otherwise could be easily overlooked. The people Paul was talking to were elders of the Ephesus church that was established previously. (Acts 20:17) Notice Paul's instruction to the Ephesus disciples in Acts 19:1-6. After that occurred Paul went into Ephesus and taught others for months.

Hope this information helps.

 

[Wansvic]

Interesting that you mention that verse. This is what Paul wrote in v.17 - For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with wisdom and eloquence, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

iow, Paul wasn't interested in water baptism, but rather preaching the gospel.

btw, this is what Paul said about the gospel:

Rom 1:16 - For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile.

Where do you find any mention of water baptism here?

Clearly Paul water baptized people. Therefore it is apparent that preaching was his primary ministry and others baptized as seen from various scriptures.

As to your other point. Many scriptures reference one topic or another. This does not mean nothing else is necessary. Or, in this case what does the gospel entail that must be believed? Consider that Peter as well as Paul shared the gospel with both Jews and Gentiles and individuals of both groups believed their message that included the command to be baptized in water. Even after obeying the commands associated with Jesus' death, burial and resurrection, Paul made a profound statement in Philippians 2:12. We are to continue in obedience working out our own salvation with fear and trembling. And that includes confessing Jesus and His message to those who are lost.

 

[Wansvic]

Again, you are dodging the issue. Jesus told the 11 to baptize disciples in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Do you know the names of each One? Quit dodging.

I apologize. I did not realize that I never actually addressed that specific question. My comments were directed toward what Jesus meant about the name as witnessed in scripture. Jesus is the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as seen in scripture.

“I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.” John 5:43 (Father)


“O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me. And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.” John 17:25-26



“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.” Colossians 3:17 (Son)



“But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. John 14:26 (Holy Ghost)

 

[rayzor]

ok i'm not sure what people believe that there r 3 gods holy spirit the father & the son or that those 3 r the same person?