WHY?

[Underwhosewings]

Nowadays every person is their own denomination

True.
John 10:34 KJV
Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

 

[Wansvic]

If its "mere speculation" why are you not able to post even one verse from any bible that states that Peter and those in the upper room were water baptized on the "day of Pentecost'?

Its because its easy to innsinuate....., but its not so easy to prove what you can't prove, mustaphadrink.

Scripture doesn't specify who the 3,000 were that obeyed baptism on the Day of Pentecost. However, one thing we do know is repentance, and being baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus for the remission of sin was commanded of everyone. (Acts 2:38-42) Consider the relevance of Jesus' parting words, "repentance and remission of sins would be preached IN HIS NAME in all nations BEGINNING in Jerusalem." (Luke24:47) Peter's command lines up perfectly with this prophesy.

 

[Wansvic]

'being baptised for the remission of sins'. ...

Dont take this verse all on its lonesome.

Compare it with vast amounts of scripture with no baptism in them, that are about receiving eternal life. As I've posted before.. have a look at most of the book of John...

It is about assuring believers have eternal life, and most verses in John about eternal life,

Have. No. Water. Baptism.

But back to being baptised for the remission of sins. The Greek term behind 'for' is 'eis'... 'eis'... Like... Because of... In regards to... In reference to.

Being baptised in water by immersion because of already having been given eternal life.

Last.. baptism is a work . Works before getting saved do nothing to get it. We are dead in sin before regeneration so any work before being saved is just making the dead in sin look nice.. still dead.

The Acts of the Apostles is the interpretation and demonstration of what Jesus began to do and teach in the gospels. (Acts 1:1-2)

Eternal life is not possible without the removal of sin made possible for all through Jesus' sacrifice. As seen in the Apostle Paul's case his obedience to baptism is when his sin was washed away. (Acts 22:16) He also received the Holy Ghost. (Acts 9) This parallels what Peter first preached, (Acts 2:38) and what Paul told Corinthians in 1 Cor. 6:11:

"And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, (water baptism in the name of Jesus) AND by the Spirit of our God." (being indwelt by the Holy Spirit) 1 Cor 6:11

 

[Wansvic]

Where does your that disagree with Scripture? And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”

Repentance requires making a conscience decision, and being baptized requires immersion. Both true as revealed in the word.

 

[Wansvic]

When I posted this article, I knew that one thing was going to happen for sure. There would be plenty of people who would say that baptism in water is irrelevant. All sorts of interpretations would be put forward to show why water baptism is irrelevant.

When I am doing exegesis of scripture i tend to start at the beginning and work my way forward from there.

On the day of Pentecost, which was the first day of the New Testament Church, Peter made it very clear what had to happen. Repent and be baptized. They were the first people to become part of the New Testament Church.

if that was the requirement to become a member of the Kingdom of God, and I don't see anywhere where the scripture says you can dispense with the baptism bit, then today it is still repent and be baptised. To do otherwise is to do half measures which by the way the present-day church is very good at.

This requirement is still relevant today. Consider that the Book of Acts of the Apostles has no "Amen." That is because the Lord is still calling people and will continue to do so until He returns. (Acts 2:37-42)

 

[Wansvic]

Yes, they are. Also note that according to the book of Hebrews, baptizm is compared tl circumcision, which was done to converts when converted but children of the house at 8 days old.

Is I recall, the RCC practice was begun due to fear a baby would die lost if baptism was not administered. However, they did not take into account that the New Testament baptism command had to be preceded by belief in Jesus being the Son of God as evidenced by His death, burial and resurrection. A baby does not have the mental capacity to do that. Also, there is an age of accountability that assures the command does not apply to infants or young children.

 

[Wansvic]

I...But what the Apostles practiced offer a greater insight. And even when Peter became over zealous and carried out a water baptism (Act 10:47) ....he corrected himself (Act 11:16).
...

Peter did not correct himself concerning water baptism in Acts 11:16. Note what Peter went on to say, he said who was I to withstand God AFTER seeing the group filled with the Holy Ghost. What did Peter do after seeing the Gentiles filled with the Holy Ghost? He commanded they be water baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. This proves that withholding water baptism would have been to withstand/disobey God. And as such, the group would not have been granted repentance unto life by God.

"And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.
16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?
18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life." Acts 11:15-18


"Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." Acts 10:47-48

 

[Artios1]

Actually there is not a problem with Matthew 28:19. It is not a stand alone scripture contradicting other scriptures relevant to water baptism. Jesus' commanded water baptism "IN THE NAME OF..." The singular name is JESUS as revealed by the acts of the apostles. The Apostles understood Jesus' command and obeyed Him.

Where there is no clear cut evidence of scribal addition (forgeries) in the Word of God …the reliance of historical writings is considered ….but the final authority has got to be the Word of God. Not with assumptions to enhance ones’ personal belief … that burdens us with something that God strictly forbids for obvious reasons…. as is evident by the multiple denominations that have asserted their private interpretation.

As I stated in the previous post #117, Eusebius 260-340 A.D, the Bishop of Caesarea, who is called the father of Church History due to his extensive writings on the subject…. quoted Matt_28:19 as in my name” 17 times. Eusebius is one I lend more credence to…. as he is not rendering a personal opinion as much as quoting what was before him…. But again, the final authority has got to be the Word of God. Opinions are a dime a dozen as noted in the link below that I found …although there is some validity to a few of them …but opinions none the less.

Link → Matthew 28:19 views



The book of Mark also offers a little insight shortly before Jesus was taken up.

Mar 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Mar 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

Are the words…. Father Son and holy spirit implied in baptism …. I don’t know…. But for me to assume that…. is way beyond my spiritual pay grade.

 

[Magenta]

That won't tell you much because not everyone uses that word.

Nobody but you used it, as opposed to you saying plenty of people have said that water baptism is irrelevant.

And that's the facts.

 

[Wansvic]

they were told to get baptized BECAUSE they had RECIEVED remission of sin.

Peter only told those who0 repented and recieved the spirit to be baptized. If you studied more, you might see this

You may want to reread scripture. Those who believed in Jesus were AFTERWARD instructed to Repent, and be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus for remission of sin (water) AND those who believed and obeyed were given the promise of receiving the Holy Ghost.

"Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?

Then Peter said unto 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." (Acts 2:37-38)

 

[Wansvic]

Your OP is a fine example of WHY. Everyone wants to replace salvation by faith with salvation by ritual.

Obedience to water baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus is an act of faith. Trusting in Jesus will result in the reality associated with the command.

 

[Nehemiah6]

The apostles understood Jesus' command and obeyed Him by baptizing in the name of Jesus.

Since there are no contradictions in Scripture we must assume that "in the name of Jesus" is equivalent to "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (possibly an abbreviation). The historical record shows that it is the words of Christ which were used when early Christians were baptized.

 

[Wansvic]

Is God stupid?

I ask because everyone who preaches this "only baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ is valid" doctrine has to believe God to be a complete retard.

So you mean to tell me that someone who reads Matthew's Gospel and gets baptized in the name of the Father, The Son and the Holy Ghost is actually NOT baptized properly? God is too dumb to figure out, who is the SON there?

You make the case that you can't make a doctrine out of one verse, well, the book of Acts is not exact either, is it Jesus or Lord Jesus or Christ Jesus or Jesus Christ? What name?

I could easily make a counter argument and say: The book of Acts is a historical book and uses an abbreviation of the baptismal formula. As we know from the didache the early church DID baptize in the name of the Father/Son/Holy Ghost and have been doing so throughout centuries.

I am making the point that "name" does not mean JOHN DOE necessarily, name means in the authority of something. For example "stop in the name of the law", no one is going to wonder what NAME law has, what is law's name? is it Ryan? You have to ask the officer that.

All this to say, don't fall for this cultic interpretation and know that God is not an idiot, if you were baptized according to Father/Son/Holy Ghost baptism your baptism is VALID. If you were baptized according to Jesus' name baptism your baptism is VALID. Both are in the Bible and God knows the intention and God sees you OBEYED from your heart that which you saw in the Scriptures

So according to your understanding Jesus' name is not required even though scripture says it is? (Col. 3:17) What about casting out demons? And prayer for a myriad of reasons including for healing? How about prayer that God's will would be done? No need to obey the command to do all these in the name of the Lord Jesus? (John 14:13)

 

[Locoponydirtman]

Is I recall, the RCC practice was begun due to fear a baby would die lost if baptism was not administered. However, they did not take into account that the New Testament baptism command had to be preceded by belief in Jesus being the Son of God as evidenced by His death, burial and resurrection. A baby does not have the mental capacity to do that. Also, there is an age of accountability that assures the command does not apply to infants or young children.

Show age of accountability in scripture in any way.
I can show you that infants were circumcised and baptism is the new circumcision which occured at 8 days old. And i can show you several households that were baptised. And i cam show you, "suffer the little children to come unto me, for such as these are the kingdom of Heaven." And ," unless you co.e to me as one of these little children you may no other wise enter into the Kingdom of Heaven".
An infant live totally by faith. There is no other way for them. They cant fend for themselves.
I can also show you John who lept in his mother's womb at the nearness of the yet unborn Christ. Showing that infants even unborn yet are aware, and display faith.

And the papist fear and thus created infant baptism is a myth. Bother to read Polycarp disciple of John baltized as an infant at the behest of John.

 

[Wansvic]

When Jesus ascended back to Glory (Heaven) He called Paul personally, saying "He is a chosen vessel"..... for the "time of the Gentiles".
We are in the "time of the Gentiles". Paul is the "apostle TO the Gentiles".
Paul wrote most of the NT epistles and all the doctrine for the "body of Christ". (The Church)
Jesus is our Savior, and Lord.
Paul is the apostle who gave us. "The Gospel of the Grace of God", which came from Jesus to Paul.

Paul is the only apostle who told you this.

"be a follower of ME, as i follow Christ".

Pauline Theology is THE Theology for the Born again.

If Paul preached a different gospel, why didn't Paul object when Peter said God chose him to proclaim the gospel to the Gentiles? This along with other scriptures give evidence of their gospel being one in the same.

Acts 15:7
"And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe."

 

[Wansvic]

Since there are no contradictions in Scripture we must assume that "in the name of Jesus" is equivalent to "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (possibly an abbreviation). The historical record shows that it is the words of Christ which were used when early Christians were baptized.

It is my understanding from church history encyclopedias that the modification of baptism took place during the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. It was from that time forward that water baptism using the phrase was strictly enforced. Baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus was no longer seen as valid at that time.

Consider that the Roman Catholic Church sees itself as the Mother church whose daughters are those Protestant churches who water baptize their members using the phrase as instituted in 325 A.D. by the forerunners of the RCC.

As I am sure you are aware, the Protestant reformers broke away from "the mother church" in 16th century. The RCC called the Council of Trent wherein they condemned the practices of the protestants but acknowledged the protestants had not forsaken the mother's baptism. Afterward at Vatican Council II, in 1961-62, it was stated that the mother church was opening its arms for all our daughters (churches) to return home. Can't help thinking of the words, "Come out of her my people..." recorded in Revelation 18:4

 

[Wansvic]

Show age of accountability in scripture in any way.
I can show you that infants were circumcised and baptism is the new circumcision which occured at 8 days old. And i can show you several households that were baptised. And i cam show you, "suffer the little children to come unto me, for such as these are the kingdom of Heaven." And ," unless you co.e to me as one of these little children you may no other wise enter into the Kingdom of Heaven".
An infant live totally by faith. There is no other way for them. They cant fend for themselves.
I can also show you John who lept in his mother's womb at the nearness of the yet unborn Christ. Showing that infants even unborn yet are aware, and display faith.

And the papist fear and thus created infant baptism is a myth. Bother to read Polycarp disciple of John baltized as an infant at the behest of John.

The following scripture points to the age of accountability. Those 20 and up had the capacity but chose not to trust God.

"Your carcases shall fall in this wilderness; and all that were numbered of you, according to your whole number, from twenty years old and upward, which have murmured against me,
Doubtless ye shall not come into the land, concerning which I sware to make you dwell therein, save Caleb the son of Jephunneh, and Joshua the son of Nun.
But your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, them will I bring in, and they shall know the land which ye have despised." Num 14:29-31


Roman Catholic excerpts concerning damnation of infants not baptized:

St. Augustine declared: ‘Let no one promise infants who have not been baptized a sort of middle place of happiness between damnation and Heaven, for this is what the Pelagian heresy promised them’ (The Soul and Its Origin, Patrologiae Latinae, Migne, 44:475). St. Augusitine and many early fathers held that unbaptized infants go to Hell (the doctrine of limbo will be discussed further down). Thus, the Ecumenical Council of Florence declared: “The souls of those who die in actual mortal sin, or only in Original Sin, immediately descend into Hell” (Denz. 693). This is also the explicit teaching of the Council of Lyons II (Denz. 464).

“Anyone who would say that even infants who pass from this life without participation in the Sacrament of Baptism shall be made alive in Christ goes counter to the preaching of the Apostle and condemns the whole Church, because it is believed without doubt that there is no other way at all in which they can be made alive in Christ’ (St. Augustine, Epistle to Jerome , Journel: 166).

“...I thank Thee for having preserved our existence and allowed us to be born alive to receive Holy Baptism. If we had died before being delivered from Original Sin by the grace of Holy Baptism, which has been the misfortune of many souls, we would never have seen Thy divine face, and we would have been deprived of Thy holy love forever. May the angels and saints bless Thee forever for this most special favor Thou hast accorded us!” — St. John Eudes

 

[Wansvic]

Where there is no clear cut evidence of scribal addition (forgeries) in the Word of God …the reliance of historical writings is considered ….but the final authority has got to be the Word of God. Not with assumptions to enhance ones’ personal belief … that burdens us with something that God strictly forbids for obvious reasons…. as is evident by the multiple denominations that have asserted their private interpretation.

As I stated in the previous post #117, Eusebius 260-340 A.D, the Bishop of Caesarea, who is called the father of Church History due to his extensive writings on the subject…. quoted Matt_28:19 as in my name” 17 times. Eusebius is one I lend more credence to…. as he is not rendering a personal opinion as much as quoting what was before him…. But again, the final authority has got to be the Word of God. Opinions are a dime a dozen as noted in the link below that I found …although there is some validity to a few of them …but opinions none the less.

Link → Matthew 28:19 views



The book of Mark also offers a little insight shortly before Jesus was taken up.

Mar 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Mar 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

Are the words…. Father Son and holy spirit implied in baptism …. I don’t know…. But for me to assume that…. is way beyond my spiritual pay grade.

No assumptions made. The Apostles consistently baptized in the name of Jesus. Their obedience to the command is evidence they understood what Jesus meant. As you have said there is no evidence anyone was ever baptized using the phrase, that incidentally was begun well after the apostolic era.

 

[Locoponydirtman]

The following scripture points to the age of accountability. Those 20 and up had the capacity but chose not to trust God.

"Your carcases shall fall in this wilderness; and all that were numbered of you, according to your whole number, from twenty years old and upward, which have murmured against me,
Doubtless ye shall not come into the land, concerning which I sware to make you dwell therein, save Caleb the son of Jephunneh, and Joshua the son of Nun.
But your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, them will I bring in, and they shall know the land which ye have despised." Num 14:29-31


Roman Catholic excerpts concerning damnation of infants not baptized:

St. Augustine declared: ‘Let no one promise infants who have not been baptized a sort of middle place of happiness between damnation and Heaven, for this is what the Pelagian heresy promised them’ (The Soul and Its Origin, Patrologiae Latinae, Migne, 44:475). St. Augusitine and many early fathers held that unbaptized infants go to Hell (the doctrine of limbo will be discussed further down). Thus, the Ecumenical Council of Florence declared: “The souls of those who die in actual mortal sin, or only in Original Sin, immediately descend into Hell” (Denz. 693). This is also the explicit teaching of the Council of Lyons II (Denz. 464).

“Anyone who would say that even infants who pass from this life without participation in the Sacrament of Baptism shall be made alive in Christ goes counter to the preaching of the Apostle and condemns the whole Church, because it is believed without doubt that there is no other way at all in which they can be made alive in Christ’ (St. Augustine, Epistle to Jerome , Journel: 166).

“...I thank Thee for having preserved our existence and allowed us to be born alive to receive Holy Baptism. If we had died before being delivered from Original Sin by the grace of Holy Baptism, which has been the misfortune of many souls, we would never have seen Thy divine face, and we would have been deprived of Thy holy love forever. May the angels and saints bless Thee forever for this most special favor Thou hast accorded us!” — St. John Eudes

At least you have some basis for your assertion, even though for me thats a hard sell.

I think it would be hard to say anyone baptized before they turned 20 that their baptism is invalid due to age accountability.

 

[Locoponydirtman]

The following scripture points to the age of accountability. Those 20 and up had the capacity but chose not to trust God.

"Your carcases shall fall in this wilderness; and all that were numbered of you, according to your whole number, from twenty years old and upward, which have murmured against me,
Doubtless ye shall not come into the land, concerning which I sware to make you dwell therein, save Caleb the son of Jephunneh, and Joshua the son of Nun.
But your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, them will I bring in, and they shall know the land which ye have despised." Num 14:29-31


Roman Catholic excerpts concerning damnation of infants not baptized:

St. Augustine declared: ‘Let no one promise infants who have not been baptized a sort of middle place of happiness between damnation and Heaven, for this is what the Pelagian heresy promised them’ (The Soul and Its Origin, Patrologiae Latinae, Migne, 44:475). St. Augusitine and many early fathers held that unbaptized infants go to Hell (the doctrine of limbo will be discussed further down). Thus, the Ecumenical Council of Florence declared: “The souls of those who die in actual mortal sin, or only in Original Sin, immediately descend into Hell” (Denz. 693). This is also the explicit teaching of the Council of Lyons II (Denz. 464).

“Anyone who would say that even infants who pass from this life without participation in the Sacrament of Baptism shall be made alive in Christ goes counter to the preaching of the Apostle and condemns the whole Church, because it is believed without doubt that there is no other way at all in which they can be made alive in Christ’ (St. Augustine, Epistle to Jerome , Journel: 166).

“...I thank Thee for having preserved our existence and allowed us to be born alive to receive Holy Baptism. If we had died before being delivered from Original Sin by the grace of Holy Baptism, which has been the misfortune of many souls, we would never have seen Thy divine face, and we would have been deprived of Thy holy love forever. May the angels and saints bless Thee forever for this most special favor Thou hast accorded us!” — St. John Eudes

I consider that Jesus died for the sin of the world, which could nullify the penalty for original sin and only make one copeable for actual sin, even though the source of all sin is original sin, and all will with out fail actually sin, and that there is certain grace for ignorance. As it is written, to him who lnows to do good but does not do it, to him it is sin, and also have mercy on the feeble minded.
I say baptize the feeble minded and the ignorant.