It would be easier to have a discussion if your posts addressed one concept at a time. Thanks.
You made an outstanding point. Too often threads go down rabbit holes or die.
It would be easier to have a discussion if your posts addressed one concept at a time. Thanks.
God was not obligated to make a way for man to come back into right standing with Him. God's grace is seen in His willingness to make a way. (Straight is the gate and narrow is the way and FEW there be that find it.) One's belief in something will be evidenced by a corresponding action. (James 2:14-26) Mankind's obligation is to BELIEVE and FOLLOW steps provided by God upon acceptance of Jesus as Messiah. Upon faith in Jesus as Messiah an individual takes a step of faith by repenting. Another step of faith is seen in their submitting to water baptism in Jesus' name. Another step of faith is seen in praying for/receiving the infilling of the Holy Ghost.
Consider what Paul meant when he stated that not all have obeyed the gospel. (Romans 10:16, 2 Thess. 1:8)
"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." Romans 1;16:19
That is just your opinion, nothing more.
Paul says, the other books were written for us to learn from.
It would serve all well to learn how other nations, peoples that is, do not follow the order given above"For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
15 Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, Eph. 3:14-15
Have you taken on the name of Jesus Christ the bridegroom?
When a man and woman are united in marriage the new wife takes on her husband’s name. The preacher does not use descriptive titles associated with a fiancée in the marriage ceremony; i.e., “Mary Smith, do you take this officer, carpenter and son of Mr. and Mrs. Doe, as your lawfully wedded husband?” Rather he says “Do you take John Doe to be your lawfully wedded husband?” After the ceremony, the bride is Mrs. John Doe. The bride sheds her birth name and acquires a new name. The bride and groom are no longer two individuals but are one in the eyes of God..
It would serve all well to learn how other nations, peoples that is, do not follow the order given above
It would also serve all to learn what the root origen is of names in general.
Jack from James, Jacob or John. Each of those contributing to the etymology of a simple name like Jack has a specific traqnslation to other languages and not simply the traqnsliteration.
I thing the best Example here would be dJesus Chrst orYeshua Mashiac. Yeshua Is My Redeemer Yah*weh( while Mashiach it Anointed of Yah(weh).
When wed to our Redeemer we becom His forever....He will give us each a new name, one which no one knows at present.
My point is people who obey Peter's command to be water baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus die to who they used to be. And, in fact have taken on the family name.It would serve all well to learn how other nations, peoples that is, do not follow the order given above
It would also serve all to learn what the root origen is of names in general.
Jack from James, Jacob or John. Each of those contributing to the etymology of a simple name like Jack has a specific traqnslation to other languages and not simply the traqnsliteration.
I thing the best Example here would be dJesus Chrst orYeshua Mashiac. Yeshua Is My Redeemer Yah*weh( while Mashiach it Anointed of Yah(weh).
When wed to our Redeemer we becom His forever....He will give us each a new name, one which no one knows at present.
Ephesians 3:15It would serve all well to learn how other nations, peoples that is, do not follow the order given above
It would also serve all to learn what the root origen is of names in general.
Jack from James, Jacob or John. Each of those contributing to the etymology of a simple name like Jack has a specific traqnslation to other languages and not simply the traqnsliteration.
I thing the best Example here would be dJesus Chrst orYeshua Mashiac. Yeshua Is My Redeemer Yah*weh( while Mashiach it Anointed of Yah(weh).
When wed to our Redeemer we becom His forever....He will give us each a new name, one which no one knows at present.
Precious friend, this may help get away from the inferences...:though there's not as much in the bible that I've found on specifics for baptism most of it has to be inferred. I would expect it be be made clear at some point in the ceremony that Christ is what your being baptized with.
Jesus comment revealed He had both power and authority. (Mark 2:5-11)been thinking and wondering what my take is on this matter, I wouldn't want to deliberately mess with how Jesus intended baptism to be carried out, on the other hand there's what he said on another matter, "Which is easier to say, your sins are forgiven or get up and walk?" though there's not as much in the bible that I've found on specifics for baptism most of it has to be inferred. I would expect it be be made clear at some point in the ceremony that Christ is what your being baptized with. I don't remember the specifics of mine, I suspect it probably was the default father, son, holy spirit type. It was a tiny Baptist church.
John's baptism was later modified to include the name of Jesus in association with His death, burial and resurrection. If baptism is supposed to be in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, as you suggest, why did Paul baptize the group in the name of the Lord Jesus?"And it happened, while Apollos was at Corinth, that Paul, having passed through the upper regions, came to Ephesus. And finding some disciples he said to them, 'Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?' So they said to him, 'We have not so much as heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.' And he said to them, 'Into what then were you baptized?' So they said, 'Into John’s baptism.' " Acts 19:1-3
This passage strongly suggests that Paul understood that if they had been baptized into Christ they would've heard about the Holy Sprit when they were baptized in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. That's why he asked into what they had been baptized when they said they had never heard of the Holy Spirit.
I find it interesting that you would use that scripture to prove you do not need to be baptized in Jesus' name where it clearly states they were baptized in Jesus' name."And it happened, while Apollos was at Corinth, that Paul, having passed through the upper regions, came to Ephesus. And finding some disciples he said to them, 'Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?' So they said to him, 'We have not so much as heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.' And he said to them, 'Into what then were you baptized?' So they said, 'Into John’s baptism.' " Acts 19:1-3
This passage strongly suggests that Paul understood that if they had been baptized into Christ they would've heard about the Holy Sprit when they were baptized in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. That's why he asked into what they had been baptized when they said they had never heard of the Holy Spirit.
John introduced the baptism of repentance for remission of sin. Belief in the soon coming Messiah prompted adherence to the command. Initially John, as well as those he baptized, had no idea who the messiah was and what He would do in order to make salvation available. However, those who are baptized in the name of Jesus for remission of sin do so in association with His death, burial and resurrection.I see two possible issues for why the two were rebaptised, their lack of knowledge and what they were baptised into. Understand I'm a worry some guy about matters of salvation.
Was it John's Baptism?"And it happened, while Apollos was at Corinth, that Paul, having passed through the upper regions, came to Ephesus. And finding some disciples he said to them, 'Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?' So they said to him, 'We have not so much as heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.' And he said to them, 'Into what then were you baptized?' So they said, 'Into John’s baptism.' " Acts 19:1-3
This passage strongly suggests that Paul understood that if they had been baptized into Christ they would've heard about the Holy Sprit when they were baptized in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. That's why he asked into what they had been baptized when they said they had never heard of the Holy Spirit.