Believing Must Be The First Step, Right?

[Hopeful 2]

What a thing for a person who claims to be a Christian to say, the Name of Jesus Christ is immaterial. The Name of Jesus Christ is the Name Above all names. The Lord told His Disciples you shall be hated of all men because you are called by my name. We take the Name of Jesus Christ in Baptism, because here is where we are buried with Him. Acts 4:12 (KJV) Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

You've missed the point.
Is baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost, any less effective than baptism in the name of Jesus Christ ?
No.

 

[Anchor Of Hope]

I will remind you that this is the Apologetics forum. As per the Rules, "8. As this forum is for serious apologetic discussion and debate, relevant verses from the Bible and/or other supporting documentation must be given to support one's assertions, especially when asked for by others."

Members are expected to address questions asked of them and provide support for their assertions. Yet, you are avoiding doing so on a few things.

Also, I strongly suggest avoiding implying that someone can't or isn't reading a verse, especially when it is clear that they can and they have. Your posts so far suggest that you aren't interested in the truth of Scripture, only in your opinion of it. Until you're willing to show others respect by addressing everything put to you and not be condescending, the discussion will just go in circles.

Again, do you think that Jesus told them to baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and then just 10 days later they decided to disobey, beginning from their first time baptizing into the church? Are you sure you want to stick with that argument or would like to add some qualification(s)? What do you think "name" refers to in Matt. 28:19?

Who were the very first who were baptized in Acts 2 and why do you think Peter would tell them to "be baptized . . . in the name of Jesus"?

The only thing I can tell you my friend is this -- You are not interested in Truth, you are interested in arguing, I am not interested in arguing rule #1. If you don't know how to read Scripture it's not my problem, I have laid out everything, in context to the Foundational teaching of the Early Church on what they and we must do to be Saved found in Acts 2:38, whether you believe it or not is not my concern.
I could tell you all day long, the implementation of Matthew 28:19 began at the Council of Nicaea 325-381 AD a Man made Doctrine, and you choose to follow that man made doctrine, which is a choice that you will deal with when you stand before the Lord. So, my dear friend, I am not interested in arguing, I don't mind healthy debate, but after a period of time, when there is no more to say, then let it be.

 

[Anchor Of Hope]

Anchor--- I'm sorry, but you have it backwards as I said. Things in the Spirit are opposite of the flesh. The flesh thinks "work and strive for it, DO SOMETHING and you'll be saved". But the Spirit teaches "receive Christ, and then the Holy Spirit will make you a NEW CREATION". Once you are new your desires will change. You will seek to repent because you no longer want to do what you used to do. Please see this verse from 1 Peter:

"Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, UNTO OBEDIENCE and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied. (1 Peter 1:2)

Please note that "sanctification" comes BEFORE "obedience" in the verse above. You are "sanctified" UNTO "obedience". This is backwards thinking to a natural man. You BELIEVE and are SAVED. This LEADS to repentance, and then to obedience. You don't do works to be saved. You are saved to do good works.

I didn't say that my friend, Jesus said that in Luke 16:16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.

 

[Hopeful 2]

Not at all. See Eph. 2:6 below.

And again, how do we "get in Him" ?
We are water baptized into Him..."Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?" (Rom 6:3)
Without baptism, no man can be "in Christ".

You're dodging all those verses I provided. Baptism is a separate

Separate what ?

No, it isn't necessary for salvation, but it is disobedient to not be baptized. All those verses that you're ignoring support my position, not yours.

Your POV is that disobedience has no bearing on salvation.
I cannot agree.

No, he wrote against all works, but coming to the conclusion you have is what happens when you ignore large portions of what Paul wrote.

I disagree.
Where did Paul write against repentance from sin, or water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of past sins ?
Or enduring faithfully until the end ?

Eph 2:4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us,
Eph 2:5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved—
Eph 2:6 and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,
Eph 2:7 so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.
Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,
Eph 2:9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. (ESV)

2Ti 1:9 who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began, (ESV)

Tit 3:4 But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared,
Tit 3:5 he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit,
Tit 3:6 whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior,
Tit 3:7 so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
Tit 3:8 The saying is trustworthy, and I want you to insist on these things, so that those who have believed in God may be careful to devote themselves to good works. These things are excellent and profitable for people. (ESV)

No works of any sort play a part in our justification. You don't seem to understand the nature of a gift. I feel sorry for all your loved ones who must earn their gifts from you, who must jump through hoops and hope that they are good enough.

All those verses, not associated with post-conversion behavior, dealt with the works of the Law.
Just as all the verses about works in Romans do.
All men that do not "turn from" sin, will be lost.
All men who are not crucified with Christ, will be lost.

 

[Anchor Of Hope]

You've missed the point.
Is baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost, any less effective than baptism in the name of Jesus Christ ?
No.

Absolutely! Because Father is not a Name, it's a descriptive title, Neither is Son a Name, it's a descriptive title. Holy Ghost is not a Name, it's a descriptive title. I know you are a smart man my friend, and you must know that is true.

 

[Free]

The only thing I can tell you my friend is this -- You are not interested in Truth, you are interested in arguing, I am not interested in arguing rule #1.

On the contrary, I'm not the one avoiding answering questions or addressing objections. I'm very much interested in the truth, but that requires engaging with things that are difficult for my position, which I do.

If you don't know how to read Scripture it's not my problem,

Please stop with the condescension.

I have laid out everything, in context to the Foundational teaching of the Early Church on what they and we must do to be Saved found in Acts 2:38, whether you believe it or not is not my concern.

You have laid things out but ignored a lot of context.

I could tell you all day long, the implementation of Matthew 28:19 began at the Council of Nicaea 325-381 AD a Man made Doctrine, and you choose to follow that man made doctrine, which is a choice that you will deal with when you stand before the Lord.

You could, but you haven't provided any evidence, so it is only your opinion and doesn't matter.

So, my dear friend, I am not interested in arguing, I don't mind healthy debate, but after a period of time, when there is no more to say, then let it be.

There is still a lot to say, if you would only address those things that you have so far avoided addressing.

 

[Anchor Of Hope]

On the contrary, I'm not the one avoiding answering questions or addressing objections. I'm very much interested in the truth, but that requires engaging with things that are difficult for my position, which I do.


Please stop with the condescension.


You have laid things out but ignored a lot of context.


You could, but you haven't provided any evidence, so it is only your opinion and doesn't matter.


There is still a lot to say, if you would only address those things that you have so far avoided addressing.

Everything I've said I have addressed by Scripture. Tell me what I haven't addressed?

 

[Free]

And again, how do we "get in Him" ?
We are water baptized into Him..."Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?" (Rom 6:3)
Without baptism, no man can be "in Christ".

No, we "get in him" when we are justified.

Separate what ?

Oops. It's a separate issue from salvation. An argument could probably be made that it plays a part in our sanctification, but absolutely not in our justification.

Your POV is that disobedience has no bearing on salvation.
I cannot agree.

No, I have never said that; it has nothing to do with my POV. Again, this comes down to your willful lack of serious study and not understanding that salvation is spoken of in past tense (justification), present tense (sanctification), and future tense (glorification) terms. Until you understand the differences, you'll never get this (and other things) right.

I disagree.
Where did Paul write against repentance from sin, or water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of past sins ?
Or enduring faithfully until the end ?

He didn't, because those aren't works.

All those verses, not associated with post-conversion behavior, dealt with the works of the Law.
Just as all the verses about works in Romans do.

It has absolutely nothing to do with pre- or "post-conversion behavior." The passages literally spell out how one is justified (declared righteous), which is the initial point of salvation. It is not by any works whatsoever, otherwise it isn't a free gift. Adding a single work to salvation is anti-Christ as it would mean his work on the cross was insufficient. It would mean we must do something to earn our salvation, in which case it would cease to be the free gift Paul says it is.

All men that do not "turn from" sin, will be lost.

All men who are not crucified with Christ, will be lost.

All those who do not repent and put their faith in Christ and his atoning work will be lost.

 

[Anchor Of Hope]

Everything I've said I have addressed by Scripture. Tell me what I haven't addressed?

You keep saying that all a person has to do to be saved is simply say, “I believe in Jesus Christ,” and that nothing more is required. But I say, that is not true at all. You are taking doctrine established by the modern church from Romans 10:9-10 and Ephesians 2:8-9, yet you are using these scriptures out of context to establish a doctrine of salvation that is only half-true.

Why? Because the Epistles were written to churches whose members had already repented of their sins, been baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ, and, in most cases, had received the gift of the Holy Ghost. Paul was writing to remind them of where faith had brought them—he was not establishing a doctrine of salvation. That had already been established in Acts 2:38.

 

[Hopeful 2]

Absolutely! Because Father is not a Name, it's a descriptive title, Neither is Son a Name, it's a descriptive title. Holy Ghost is not a Name, it's a descriptive title. I know you are a smart man my friend, and you must know that is true.

Jesus told the apostles to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. (Matt 28:29)
Isn't that enough for you ?
What is the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. ?
It is Jesus.

 

[Anchor Of Hope]

On the contrary, I'm not the one avoiding answering questions or addressing objections. I'm very much interested in the truth, but that requires engaging with things that are difficult for my position, which I do.


Please stop with the condescension.


You have laid things out but ignored a lot of context.


You could, but you haven't provided any evidence, so it is only your opinion and doesn't matter.


There is still a lot to say, if you would only address those things that you have so far avoided addressing.

Oh, you want evidence about the Council of Nicaea? It can be found in many encyclopedias and on Google—just type Council of Nicaea 325-381 AD. It was a major historical event, headed by Constantine, the Emperor of Rome, who, by the way, was a pagan worshipper of the sun goddess of that time.

Yet here he is, bringing church leaders together—under the guise of ending persecution, under the guise of peace. In this council, they established a doctrine that completely did away with the Name of Jesus Christ in baptism, replacing it with the repetition of Matthew 28:19.

Nowhere in the history book of the early church—which, by the way, is the Book of Acts—do we find the apostles baptizing any convert by simply repeating Matthew 28:19. Instead, we see:

• Acts 2 – in the Name of Jesus Christ
• Acts 8 – in the Name of Jesus Christ
• Acts 10 – in the Name of the Lord
• Acts 19 – in the Name of the Lord Jesus

The Council of Nicaea was designed by Satan to do away with the Name of Jesus Christ in baptism.

 

[Anchor Of Hope]

Jesus told the apostles to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. (Matt 28:29)
Isn't that enough for you ?
What is the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. ?
It is Jesus.

It is Jesus so, Say it; in Baptism. Are you ashamed of His Name? Matthew was writing about the great Commission Also in Luke 24 Luke is addressing this same subject. But this is how Luke wrote it: Luke 24:47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

 

[Hopeful 2]

No, we "get in him" when we are justified.

And that justification is by His blood. (Rom 5:9)
How is that justifying blood applied to us ?
By our baptism into Christ and into His death. (Rom 6:3-4)

Oops. It's a separate issue from salvation. An argument could probably be made that it plays a part in our sanctification, but absolutely not in our justification.

You didn't write a complete sentence, so I asked "Separate what ?"

No, I have never said that;

Your next words said it..."No, it isn't necessary for salvation, but it is disobedient to not be baptized. "

it has nothing to do with my POV. Again, this comes down to your willful lack of serious study and not understanding that salvation is spoken of in past tense (justification), present tense (sanctification), and future tense (glorification) terms. Until you understand the differences, you'll never get this (and other things) right.

Justification and sanctification occur at the same application of the blood of Jesus Christ; and that happens at our baptism into Him and into His death. (Rom 5:9, Heb 10:10)

He didn't, because those aren't works.

I thought your whole mind set was...not to do works for salvation ?
That is what you have been calling repentance and baptism all along !

It has absolutely nothing to do with pre- or "post-conversion behavior." The passages literally spell out how one is justified (declared righteous), which is the initial point of salvation.

As that justification is facilitated by the blood of Christ, and that blood is applied at baptism, I guess we could say that baptism is the initial point of salvation !
I agree, if it is after a real, true repentance from sin.

It is not by any works whatsoever, otherwise it isn't a free gift. Adding a single work to salvation is anti-Christ as it would mean his work on the cross was insufficient. It would mean we must do something to earn our salvation, in which case it would cease to be the free gift Paul says it is.

As you just stated above, repentance and baptism are not works.
Those are free gifts too.
Without them, there will be no salvation.

All those who do not repent and put their faith in Christ and his atoning work will be lost.

I agree, knowing that one of His atoning works was providing water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of past sins.
That by "immersion" into His sanctifying, atoning, justifying, consecrating blood, we will be saved on the day of judgement.

 

[Hopeful 2]

It is Jesus so, Say it; in Baptism. Are you ashamed of His Name? Matthew was writing about the great Commission Also in Luke 24 Luke is addressing this same subject. But this is how Luke wrote it: Luke 24:47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

All three of the "titles", are, Jesus Christ.

 

[Free]

Everything I've said I have addressed by Scripture. Tell me what I haven't addressed?

Going back to at least page 4, you never actually answered this question: Do you know that the Bible speaks of salvation using three different terms--justification, sanctification, and glorification--to represent a past event, an ongoing reality, and a future fulfillment? You did respond to it on page 4, but as I pointed out, you didn't answer the question.

You also didn't address what I posted HERE, in post #109, on page 6. Nor post #161, HERE, and post #162, which were implicitly addressed to you. All of what is said in those posts are additional context that must be taken into account.

You also didn't address what the Didache says about baptism, HERE, in post #175.

You haven't provided the requested evidence, HERE.

You didn't answer this question: Who were the very first who were baptized in Acts 2 and why do you think Peter would tell them to "be baptized . . . in the name of Jesus"? HERE.

 

[Anchor Of Hope]

I will remind you that this is the Apologetics forum. As per the Rules, "8. As this forum is for serious apologetic discussion and debate, relevant verses from the Bible and/or other supporting documentation must be given to support one's assertions, especially when asked for by others."

Members are expected to address questions asked of them and provide support for their assertions. Yet, you are avoiding doing so on a few things.

Also, I strongly suggest avoiding implying that someone can't or isn't reading a verse, especially when it is clear that they can and they have. Your posts so far suggest that you aren't interested in the truth of Scripture, only in your opinion of it. Until you're willing to show others respect by addressing everything put to you and not be condescending, the discussion will just go in circles.

Again, do you think that Jesus told them to baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and then just 10 days later they decided to disobey, beginning from their first time baptizing into the church? Are you sure you want to stick with that argument or would like to add some qualification(s)? What do you think "name" refers to in Matt. 28:19?

Who were the very first who were baptized in Acts 2 and why do you think Peter would tell them to "be baptized . . . in the name of Jesus"?

My Friend, you know as well as I, the Bible doesn't name the people who were Baptized in chapter 2, all we know is 3,000 who obeyed what Peter had preached were added to the Church that very day Acts 2:41.

 

[Free]

Oh, you want evidence about the Council of Nicaea?

No. You made a specific claim, which was: "No Apostle baptized anyone repeating Matthew 28:19 — That doctrine came about when a pagan Emperor of Rome, Constantine was used by satan, to form a Council called the Council of Nicaea where the Mode of Baptism was changed to do away with the Name of Jesus Christ in Baptism."

You must provide evidence for that. This is all the more important when the Didache, the very early church document I quoted to you, proves your claim to be false.

Yet here he is, bringing church leaders together—under the guise of ending persecution,

Not true. He had already effectively ended persecution 12 years earlier by legalizing Christianity in the Edict of Milan. He wanted doctrinal unity in the Church.

under the guise of peace. In this council, they established a doctrine that completely did away with the Name of Jesus Christ in baptism, replacing it with the repetition of Matthew 28:19.

They didn't establish any doctrine; they affirmed what the Church at large already believed.

Nowhere in the history book of the early church—which, by the way, is the Book of Acts—do we find the apostles baptizing any convert by simply repeating Matthew 28:19. Instead, we see:

• Acts 2 – in the Name of Jesus Christ
• Acts 8 – in the Name of Jesus Christ
• Acts 10 – in the Name of the Lord
• Acts 19 – in the Name of the Lord Jesus

Yet, we see it in the Didache, which was possibly written before Acts, but it was absolutely written long before Constantine's time. Acts doesn't say what you want it to say.

The Council of Nicaea was designed by Satan to do away with the Name of Jesus Christ in baptism.

Apart from being incorrect, this isn't evidence of your claims. Nothing you have given here has anything to do with Matt. 28:19, other than to undermine the authority and inspiration of Scripture.

 

[Free]

My Friend, you know as well as I, the Bible doesn't name the people who were Baptized in chapter 2, all we know is 3,000 who obeyed what Peter had preached were added to the Church that very day Acts 2:41.

Then I know something the Bible says that you don't.--it says they were Jews. Put some thought into it.

 

[Anchor Of Hope]

First, that verse may not be original (all of Mark 16:9-20), but added later by someone other than Mark. Second, notice that baptism isn't mentioned for those that don't believe.

Says, who? I have enough Faith in the God I serve, to make sure everything in the Scripture that was translated has been given for to us from the God of Heaven and Earth, (Jesus Christ is His Name). Including Scriptures you say might have been added.

 

[Anchor Of Hope]

Then I know something the Bible says that you don't.--it says they were Jews. Put some thought into it.

There were 11 Nations, in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost, put some thought into that, including those from Rome.