Believing Must Be The First Step, Right?

[Free]

I am amazed that you have learned so much, yet still do not understand the simple Plan of Salvation found in Acts 2:38. From my brief interaction with you here, it is evident that you have no hesitation in disregarding Scriptures that do not align with your perspective, simply because 'scholars said' otherwise—hmm. Namely, passages like Mark 16:16, Acts 2:1-4, and Luke 24:47, Acts 10:46-48, Acts 19:5-6. Your reasoning is so far off that it’s not just flawed—it’s completely disconnected from the foundation of biblical truth. At this point, there’s no logical path forward in this discussion unless you're willing to acknowledge what the Word actually says.

And, again, I need point out the numerous passages and points I have made that you have ignored. Even after you just asked yesterday what you haven't addressed, I laid things out once again, in post #215, yet you still ignored all of that. My reasoning is sound, yours is not--it is largely fallaciously begging the question.

I have addressed all your arguments and scriptures you provided, but you have disrespectfully not done likewise. You have zero grounds for any of your claims against me due to your unwillingness to engage respectfully with Scripture.

 

[Anchor Of Hope]

Are you saying "must" as absolutely necessary or maybe "should?"

Joe blow goes up in front of the Church and confesses Christ, then on the way to the baptistry, trips and breaks his neck. Does he go to Hell because he wasn't baptized?

Ah, the classic "what if" scenario designed to challenge the necessity of baptism! This question usually seeks to place God's justice and mercy in opposition, but let’s break it down biblically.

Must or Should?​

When the Bible commands something, it’s not given as a suggestion but as divine instruction. Jesus Himself said:

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

Peter, speaking on the Day of Pentecost, declared:

Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins…— Acts 2:38​

Paul himself was instructed:

And now why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. — Acts 22:16​

These aren’t words of suggestion—they are commands. Baptism is consistently linked to salvation, remission of sins, and being born again into Christ.

But What About the "Joe Blow" Scenario?​

Here’s the real question: Is God bound by human hypotheticals, or is man bound by God’s commands?

If we start creating exception cases to redefine doctrine, we risk moving away from what Scripture plainly teaches. But let’s not lose sight of God’s sovereignty either.

God alone is the Judge, and He knows the heart. We cannot presume to override clear biblical teaching just because we can invent a scenario where someone dies before completing their obedience. Our role isn’t to speculate on “what ifs” but to teach what is written and urge people to obey God’s Word while they have the opportunity.

If someone truly desires to obey God but dies before they can physically be baptized, their fate is in God’s hands, not ours. But should we base doctrine on rare hypotheticals—or on the clear pattern of Scripture?

I say we must preach what Jesus and the apostles taught for He is the final Judge.

 

[Whatever]

1Co 1:17 For Christ did not send me to baptize.

 

[Anchor Of Hope]

And, again, I need point out the numerous passages and points I have made that you have ignored. Even after you just asked yesterday what you haven't addressed, I laid things out once again, in post #215, yet you still ignored all of that. My reasoning is sound, yours is not--it is largely fallaciously begging the question.

I have addressed all your arguments and scriptures you provided, but you have disrespectfully not done likewise. You have zero grounds for any of your claims against me due to your unwillingness to engage respectfully with Scripture.

It seems we have reached a point where you claim to have addressed my arguments while simultaneously stating that I have ignored yours. However, addressing something does not simply mean dismissing it—it requires engaging with it honestly and scripturally. If I have missed a point, I am more than willing to review it, but let's be clear: disagreement is not the same as disregard. Yet, The issue here is not that I refuse to engage—it’s that I refuse to redefine Scripture based on human reasoning like you have put forth.

The real issue here is that you continue to sidestep the true Plan of Salvation as laid out in Acts 2:38—a plan that was not man’s invention but the direct command given by Peter under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost: '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.' This is the message the apostles preached, the early Church obeyed, and the foundation upon which salvation was established. Yet, instead of following the clear biblical pattern, you reduce salvation to a mere verbal acknowledgment, claiming that simply 'saying you believe' is sufficient.

But belief, according to Scripture, is always followed by obedience. Even the devils believe and tremble (James 2:19), but they are not saved. Noah believed, but his faith required him to build the ark (Hebrews 11:7). The Israelites believed, but they had to apply the blood to the doorposts (Exodus 12:7). Abraham believed but he had to walk the land. Faith is always demonstrated through action. To claim otherwise is to create a doctrine that is neither apostolic nor biblical.

Furthermore, your arguments seem to come from all over the place, scattered without a true central point, attempting to twist Scripture rather than submit to its authority. If my reasoning is 'fallaciously begging the question,' then let’s put the focus back where it belongs—on the Word of God. Show me, by Scripture alone, where my understanding is flawed, rather than making broad accusations of logical fallacies. The real question is not whether I have ignored your points—the real question is whether you are willing to submit to the full counsel of Scripture rather than selecting only the verses that fit your preconceived belief. Let’s keep this about truth, not tactics."

 

[Anchor Of Hope]

1Co 1:17 For Christ did not send me to baptize.

Is that all you got? All I can say dear whatever, you are deceived

 

[Anchor Of Hope]

We don't believe that because the Bible doesn't not say that
Baptism is absolutely not required for salvation. ONLY faith in Christ is required for salvation.. everything else is false teaching. What must be repented of is unbelief in Christ. That is the pattern or righteousness throughout the Bible. That is what fits the context of the whole Bible.

"It is by grace you have been saved through faith and this not of yourselves it is the gift of God and NOT THE RESULT OF WORKS so that no man may boast."

"Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness."

"Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin."

"21But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness is given through faith in h Jesus Christ to all who believe."


"25God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, i through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus."

"10Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! 11And he received circumcision as a sign, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. 12And he is then also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also follow in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised."


"1You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard? 3Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh? a 4Have you experienced b so much in vain—if it really was in vain? 5So again I ask, does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you by the works of the law, or by your believing what you heard? 6So also Abraham “believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”
"

We are saved by grace alone, by faith alone, in Christ alone.

If you confess your sins He is faithful and JUST to forgive our sins and cleans us from all unrighteousness.

1 John was written to believers. Believers are to confess their sins and when they do they are forgiven, not only that but it is Justice when God does it.. so complete was Jesus's work on the cross that it would be unjust of God not to forgive us when we confess. This has nothing to do with our goodness but rather the completeness of Jesus's sacrifice and victory over sin.. We don't defeat sin, Jesus did.

How much sin does God forgive? ALL OF IT.. sin as an issue is done.. dealt with, finished, gone. Avoiding sin is not our primary focus. Drawing close to God is our focus and always has been. The idea that the way God interacts with us had changed from old testament to new is false.
The only thing that has changed is that we are under grace not under the law, which Paul was so adamant about throughout his works.
We are under the promise God made to Abraham. Righteousness not through our behavior but through faith.. faith of course should lead to right behavior. However we are still sinners and we still need confession repentance and forgiveness.

John writing to believers tells us that we are sinners and that anyone claiming not to be is a liar who has no truth.

That's simply what the Bible says when you take the whole thing in context..

Paul says it is through the law we become conscious of sin. If one comes to faith in Christ but doesn't know the law they cannot be conscious of sin and therefore cannot repent of sin. This was exactly the case in Paul's epistles. He was writing to people who did not know the law, Gentiles he had to train them not to be like heathens, yet these were saved believers in Christ. They learned over time what they needed to repent of to become more Christ like. They were already saved on account of believing God and having it accounted to them as righteousness.

Dear God, after all these years I am still just a sinner saved by Your grace through the work of Your Son Jesus.
I am in desperate need of your constant intervention in my life through Your Holy Spirit. Thank You for saving me. I did not deserve it and still don't. Thank You for Your grace and mercy. They are the only way I make it through each day. Lord may we all be humble when we think of You and bring us all into obedience to your word through Your work as our work is filthy rags. Lord I am nothing on my own. Everything good in or from my life is from You.
Lord please forgive my sin so that I may be righteousness. I believe Jesus is the Son of God, slain for my iniquity, raised from the dead by Your power and sitting at Your right hand according to your Glory. Thank you for giving me this faith, make me a better steward of it. In the name above every other Jesus.. amen.

You say baptism is not required for salvation, yet the Bible explicitly commands it. You claim faith alone saves, yet James 2:17 says, 'Faith without works is dead.' Even Jesus Himself declared, 'He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved' (Mark 16:16). The apostles never preached a faith that ignored baptism—Acts 2:38, Acts 8:12-16, Acts 10:47-48, and Acts 19:5 all show that true saving faith led believers to water baptism in Jesus' name. Yet you want to quote scripture that fits your narrative, and discard the rest of the Scriptures with no thought of trying to reconcile it's context. Satan deceived Eve by twisting what God said. Half-Truth is deception. The very first thing the Lord Jesus told His Disciples in Matthew 24:4 about the last days, "Don't Be Deceived. Yet people today hold on to what they like and discard the other scriptures, this my friend is a tactic of satan, don't fall for it.

You cite Abraham's faith, but Abraham's faith was demonstrated through obedience (Hebrews 11:8). Likewise, biblical faith always results in action. Noah believed and built the ark. Israel believed and applied the blood. The New Testament pattern is clear: belief leads to obedience—repentance, baptism in Jesus' name, and receiving the Holy Ghost (Acts 2:38). To claim salvation without obedience to the full gospel is to preach 'another gospel' (Galatians 1:8-9), and Paul said let them be accursed.

I do not deny grace—I uphold it. But grace does not nullify obedience; rather, it empowers it (Titus 2:11-12). The apostles never preached 'faith alone'; they preached repentance, baptism, and the infilling of the Holy Ghost, and living a Holy, Righteous, and Godly life afterwards. That is the biblical pattern, and anything less is a tradition of men, which was established at the Council of Nicaea 325-381 AD. and is not the doctrine of Christ.

 

[Anchor Of Hope]

So much for your trinity belief...eh ?
Are the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, one, or not ?

The Godhead is NOT 3 persons, the Godhead IS 3 Manifestations of the One True God.

 

[Anchor Of Hope]

As the Matt 28:19 says..."baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit", Jesus is that name.

Then say it: I now Baptize you in the Name of Jesus Christ. Repeating Matthew 28:19 was never repeated in the Book of Acts.

 

[Free]

It seems we have reached a point where you claim to have addressed my arguments while simultaneously stating that I have ignored yours.

I'm just stating the facts.

However, addressing something does not simply mean dismissing it—it requires engaging with it honestly and scripturally.

Which I have done and you have not done.

If I have missed a point, I am more than willing to review it,

No, you're not. I've had to repeat myself several times and yet you still refuse to engage. Even now, instead of writing this post, you could have addressed the number of issues I linked to in this very post you quoted.

but let's be clear: disagreement is not the same as disregard. Yet, The issue here is not that I refuse to engage—it’s that I refuse to redefine Scripture based on human reasoning like you have put forth.

No, you refuse to engage. At least be honest. Scripture interprets Scripture, but you are pitting Scripture against itself. And I believe that is why you are purposely avoiding addressing what I've posted.

The real issue here is that you continue to sidestep the true Plan of Salvation as laid out in Acts 2:38—a plan that was not man’s invention but the direct command given by Peter under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost: '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.' This is the message the apostles preached, the early Church obeyed, and the foundation upon which salvation was established. Yet, instead of following the clear biblical pattern, you reduce salvation to a mere verbal acknowledgment, claiming that simply 'saying you believe' is sufficient.

I've addressed all this. You would know that if you read my posts and then actually tried to engage. The main problem is that everything you post, including Acts 2:38, is taken out of context, because you continue to ignore what is plainly stated in those numerous passages I posted. Hence, you end up with the wrong understanding of that verse.

But belief, according to Scripture, is always followed by obedience. Even the devils believe and tremble (James 2:19), but they are not saved. Noah believed, but his faith required him to build the ark (Hebrews 11:7). The Israelites believed, but they had to apply the blood to the doorposts (Exodus 12:7). Abraham believed but he had to walk the land. Faith is always demonstrated through action. To claim otherwise is to create a doctrine that is neither apostolic nor biblical.

Except that you're missing out on the most obvious fact, which I have pointed out numerous times--actions (works) do not save anyone. We do good works because we are saved, not to be saved; they are evidence of saving faith. If you add just one work to salvation, such as baptism, that puts you outside of Christ and outside of salvation. You're telling Jesus that his work on the cross just wasn't good enough and telling God that he lied about his gift being free and about his grace being sufficient for you.

Furthermore, your arguments seem to come from all over the place, scattered without a true central point, attempting to twist Scripture rather than submit to its authority.

And, yet, you haven't shown any of this to be the case. All you seem to have are opinions.

If my reasoning is 'fallaciously begging the question,' then let’s put the focus back where it belongs—on the Word of God. Show me, by Scripture alone, where my understanding is flawed, rather than making broad accusations of logical fallacies.

I have done so, more than once, but you continue to ignore the passages of Scripture I posted.

The real question is not whether I have ignored your points—the real question is whether you are willing to submit to the full counsel of Scripture rather than selecting only the verses that fit your preconceived belief. Let’s keep this about truth, not tactics."

This is very dishonest. Yet again, I have provided numerous passages which you continue to ignore in order to hold dear your out-of-context opinion about what verses such as Acts 2:38 state. I am the one trying to bring in and "submit to the full counsel of Scripture" and you are the one "selecting only the verses that fit your preconceived belief." That is the truth, for which I even provided links when you asked.

 

[Anchor Of Hope]

I'm just stating the facts.


Which I have done and you have not done.


No, you're not. I've had to repeat myself several times and yet you still refuse to engage. Even now, instead of writing this post, you could have addressed the number of issues I linked to in this very post you quoted.


No, you refuse to engage. At least be honest. Scripture interprets Scripture, but you are pitting Scripture against itself. And I believe that is why you are purposely avoiding addressing what I've posted.


I've addressed all this. You would know that if you read my posts and then actually tried to engage. The main problem is that everything you post, including Acts 2:38, is taken out of context, because you continue to ignore what is plainly stated in those numerous passages I posted. Hence, you end up with the wrong understanding of that verse.


Except that you're missing out on the most obvious fact, which I have pointed out numerous times--actions (works) do not save anyone. We do good works because we are saved, not to be saved; they are evidence of saving faith. If you add just one work to salvation, such as baptism, that puts you outside of Christ and outside of salvation. You're telling Jesus that his work on the cross just wasn't good enough and telling God that he lied about his gift being free and about his grace being sufficient for you.


And, yet, you haven't shown any of this to be the case. All you seem to have are opinions.


I have done so, more than once, but you continue to ignore the passages of Scripture I posted.


This is very dishonest. Yet again, I have provided numerous passages which you continue to ignore in order to hold dear your out-of-context opinion about what verses such as Acts 2:38 state. I am the one trying to bring in and "submit to the full counsel of Scripture" and you are the one "selecting only the verses that fit your preconceived belief." That is the truth, for which I even provided links when you asked.

Indeed, you twist and turn in attempts to make Acts 2:38 irrelevant, yet the Word stands unshaken! The apostles did not preach "optional baptism" or "faith alone"—they preached repentance, baptism in Jesus’ name, and the infilling of the Holy Ghost as the one gospel message of Salvation! I know you don't know this, or understand this but, Acts 2:38 is the Foundation the Church is Built on.

You accuse me of avoiding Scripture, yet I have presented clear biblical commands that you continue to dismiss. The Word of God is not divided against itself—Scripture interprets Scripture, and Acts 2:38 is not an isolated verse; it is the fulfillment of Christ’s command in Mark 16:16, Luke 24:47, and John 3:5. The apostles preached it, the early church obeyed it, and it is confirmed throughout the Book of Acts. Yet you want to go to the Epistles to establish a Doctrine of Salvation, do you not know the Epistles were written to the Churches, that already obeyed Acts 2:38, yet you want to discard it, a mistake "O" most learned one.

You claim that baptism is a 'work' that nullifies grace, yet Jesus Himself declared, 'He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved' (Mark 16:16). Peter commanded it 'for the remission of sins' (Acts 2:38). Paul, the very apostle you quote, was baptized to 'wash away [his] sins' (Acts 22:16). You claim I am taking Scripture out of context, yet it is you who redefines clear commands to fit a doctrine the apostles never preached.

I do not pit Scripture against Scripture; I uphold the full counsel of God’s Word. It is you who reject the plain pattern set forth by Christ and His apostles. Instead of claiming I am ignoring your points, show me—by Scripture alone—where baptism was ever treated as optional by those who walked with Jesus. If you cannot, then perhaps it is your doctrine, not mine, that is built on a preconceived belief.

 

[Free]

Indeed, you twist and turn in attempts to make Acts 2:38 irrelevant, yet the Word stands unshaken! The apostles did not preach "optional baptism" or "faith alone"—they preached repentance, baptism in Jesus’ name, and the infilling of the Holy Ghost as the one gospel message of Salvation! I know you don't know this, or understand this but, Acts 2:38 is the Foundation the Church is Built on.

You accuse me of avoiding Scripture, yet I have presented clear biblical commands that you continue to dismiss. The Word of God is not divided against itself—Scripture interprets Scripture, and Acts 2:38 is not an isolated verse; it is the fulfillment of Christ’s command in Mark 16:16, Luke 24:47, and John 3:5. The apostles preached it, the early church obeyed it, and it is confirmed throughout the Book of Acts. Yet you want to go to the Epistles to establish a Doctrine of Salvation, do you not know the Epistles were written to the Churches, that already obeyed Acts 2:38, yet you want to discard it, a mistake "O" most learned one.

You claim that baptism is a 'work' that nullifies grace, yet Jesus Himself declared, 'He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved' (Mark 16:16). Peter commanded it 'for the remission of sins' (Acts 2:38). Paul, the very apostle you quote, was baptized to 'wash away [his] sins' (Acts 22:16). You claim I am taking Scripture out of context, yet it is you who redefines clear commands to fit a doctrine the apostles never preached.

I do not pit Scripture against Scripture; I uphold the full counsel of God’s Word. It is you who reject the plain pattern set forth by Christ and His apostles. Instead of claiming I am ignoring your points, show me—by Scripture alone—where baptism was ever treated as optional by those who walked with Jesus. If you cannot, then perhaps it is your doctrine, not mine, that is built on a preconceived belief.

Okay, so once again, this entire post of yours is shown to be dishonest because you, once again, failed to address the posts which I previously pointed out that you didn't address. You continually falsely say things about my understanding of Scripture, all the while it is you that is continuing to avoid addressing numerous passages I've posted. I pointed that out at the top of this page, HERE, and when you even previously asked about it, in post #215. Until you address those posts, your dishonesty and disrespect leaves us at a standstill.

 

[Free]

The Godhead is NOT 3 persons, the Godhead IS 3 Manifestations of the One True God.

That explains everything, but is what I knew already to be true of your beliefs. That is, of course, the ancient heresy of Sabellianism/Modalism, changed slightly and rebranded by Oneness Pentecostalism.

The biblical position is that the one God has always existed as three eternal, divine persons. However, we have another sub-forum for that discussion, so let's not go there here, especially seeing as how we can't even get passed the basics in this thread.

 

[Fish153]

Yes, and what you say in all of this strongly sounds like it's coming from KJVOism, which is the most irrational position in all of Christianity. There is absolutely nothing with the removal of Mark 16:9-20 that should cause any Christian "to doubt the veracity of scripture." That type of thing only happens due to ignorance or having been taught incorrect things about Scripture.

Do not presume that just because I disagree with you that I haven't studied the relevant issues involved. The inclusion of these verses adds very little that isn't stated elsewhere. For me, this is not a hill to die on, especially since 666 has nothing to do with it.

Free---

Thanks for your post. No---I am not a person who believes "king James only". I have NLT, NIV, ESV and other translations also. But I really do have to say that I find it very strange that the NIV (and others) will leave 9-20 in their translation---but have a small section that says "Many ancient manuscripts do not include verses 9-20" Then it gives a shorter ending that you can choose also. All this ever did for me was cause doubt: "Well, if they say this, then MAYBE verses 9-20 don't belong in Mark". Basically, "Hath God said?" So it causes me to wonder: Why would God allow 9-20 to be part of the canon for hundreds of years, and then in just the last 50 years or so it is being questioned? That causes the hair on the back of my neck to stand up. I'm just being honest.

But I appreciate your point of view on this---and thanks for taking the time to discuss it.

 

[onlysaved]

You say baptism is not required for salvation, yet the Bible explicitly commands it. You claim faith alone saves, yet James 2:17 says, 'Faith without works is dead.' Even Jesus Himself declared, 'He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved' (Mark 16:16). The apostles never preached a faith that ignored baptism—Acts 2:38, Acts 8:12-16, Acts 10:47-48, and Acts 19:5 all show that true saving faith led believers to water baptism in Jesus' name. Yet you want to quote scripture that fits your narrative, and discard the rest of the Scriptures with no thought of trying to reconcile it's context. Satan deceived Eve by twisting what God said. Half-Truth is deception. The very first thing the Lord Jesus told His Disciples in Matthew 24:4 about the last days, "Don't Be Deceived. Yet people today hold on to what they like and discard the other scriptures, this my friend is a tactic of satan, don't fall for it.

You cite Abraham's faith, but Abraham's faith was demonstrated through obedience (Hebrews 11:8). Likewise, biblical faith always results in action. Noah believed and built the ark. Israel believed and applied the blood. The New Testament pattern is clear: belief leads to obedience—repentance, baptism in Jesus' name, and receiving the Holy Ghost (Acts 2:38). To claim salvation without obedience to the full gospel is to preach 'another gospel' (Galatians 1:8-9), and Paul said let them be accursed.

I do not deny grace—I uphold it. But grace does not nullify obedience; rather, it empowers it (Titus 2:11-12). The apostles never preached 'faith alone'; they preached repentance, baptism, and the infilling of the Holy Ghost, and living a Holy, Righteous, and Godly life afterwards. That is the biblical pattern, and anything less is a tradition of men, which was established at the Council of Nicaea 325-381 AD. and is not the doctrine of Christ.

Yes to all of that but it the faith that saves. The works are evidence of faith.
Baptism is of course commanded that does not make it a requirement for salvation.
You're hung up on works. Works including baptism are evidence of faith. I agree that faith without works is dead. I am only suggesting that saving faith takes place before works can be done. Works and baptism to not save you. Faith in Christ does and true faith in Christ will lead to repentance and works.

The apostle Paul absolutely preached salvation by faith apart from works. Why? Because people put their faith in the works. In fact they thought themselves better than others based on those works.
Baptism, repentance are works as are great many other things.
The first thing we are to repent of? U belief in Christ.
We agree, I just think you have the cart before the horse...
The first step a Christian must take is faith in Christ.

 

[Hopeful 2]

What do you mean? What I stated is exactly in line with the doctrine of the Trinity. To say that "the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost . . . is Jesus," as you did, is the heresy of Sabellianism/Modalism and Oneness. There is a reason Oneness Pentecostals are also known as Jesus Only.


Of course they are. There is only one God, introduced in the OT, and his name is YHWH. But that one God, YHWH, has always existed as three divine persons. Only one of those persons became flesh, at which point he was named Jesus.

I realize them as one.
When I call on Jesus, all of them answer.

 

[Hopeful 2]

Hopeful---- that is a bit of a stretch. It's not a game I'm playing. Just ask yourself what the odds are that a full book of the Bible (The Gospel of Mark) which adds up to 678 TOTAL verses, if you subtract the (12) verses the scholars are "questioning" is 666? 678 - 12 verses = 666. That is far more strange than taking 1+5 and three times. Fish153 is the name I use because my favorite chapter in the Bible is John 21. The Lord instructs the disciples to "cast their net on the right hand side of the boat" and they will catch fish. They pull in exactly 153 fish and none of them is lost--the net does not break. It speaks of election and eternity. That is why I use Fish153---not because of what you can do with the numbers.

It is just numbers puzzles that you play.
Biblical sudoku.
The same numbers can be manipulated to match almost anything.

 

[Hopeful 2]

The Godhead is NOT 3 persons, the Godhead IS 3 Manifestations of the One True God.

It is just semantics.
3 persons, 3 manifestations, 3 facets...
As long as we remain obedient to them, we will continue to enjoy their grace, protection, and guidance !

 

[Hopeful 2]

Then say it: I now Baptize you in the Name of Jesus Christ. Repeating Matthew 28:19 was never repeated in the Book of Acts.

I do say it, when I baptize.
If I were to say "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit", whose name would be understood besides Jesus' ?

 

[Free]

I realize them as one.
When I call on Jesus, all of them answer.

No, they don’t. That is (another) heresy.

It is just semantics.
3 persons, 3 manifestations, 3 facets...
As long as we remain obedient to them, we will continue to enjoy their grace, protection, and guidance !

No, it isn’t semantics. To say such shows that you don’t understand what you’re talking about. They are at core two different ideas of God—one being unitarian, one being Trinitarian. Only one of them can be, and is, true to Scripture—the Trinitarian view.

 

[Whatever]

Mar 16:16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

I don't see this as a command, just a statement. Notice it doesn't say "he who is not baptized will be condemned."

Act 2:38 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

That would be a command to those people at that time.

Act 22:16 And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.'

Here Paul is just recounting something that happened to him earlier.

My ultimate cross reference says this:
Arise. or, standing, he was baptized (2 aorist active participle, nominative singular masculine). Paul was water baptized in a standing position in a Jewish home. Nothing in this record or the parallel accounts suggests Paul went to a place where there was sufficient water for immersion. Jewish households had no provision for immersions

I always encourage somebody to get baptized. I just don't believe the "baptismal regeneration" that some teach. I believe you are saved or born again first and baptism is something you should do next.