Revelation seeker
Member
The thief on the Cross fulfilled all the principles for salvation taught by Paul in Romans 10:8-13
Upvote
0
The only name manifested to mankind is Jesus who is Christ.
That is an interesting point. However, if you're taking the fact that disciples in Ephesus weren't baptized in the name of Jesus (recorded in Acts 19:1-7) and pitting it against what I said about the Greek of Acts 2:38, wouldn't you have to assume that those in Ephesus were disciples of Jesus (Christians) instead of disciples of John the Baptist? They were sincere, as their reaction shows, but this doesn't mean they didn't have to know about Jesus and His will before being saved. In fact, Paul himself was sincere his whole life (Acts 23:1), which includes when he persecuted Christians, but this didn't mean he never had sins to wash away (Acts 22:16).I don't believe it is possible to be so prescriptive. Paul came across some disciples in Ephesus. They had been baptised by John. Paul baptised them in the name of Jesus. Then they received the Holy Spirit baptism. They were already disciples, they just lacked some knowledge. I was in a similar position. I knew that my sins were forgiven well before I was baptised in water!
Matthew 28 has a glorious expression of the name in the baptismal formula.When Moses asked God what his name was, God replied, "I AM who I AM." Exodus 3:14.
Jesus was arrested for blasphemy because he used the name of God - "I AM the Good Shepherd" and so on. The Jews knew that he was claiming to be God, John 8:58.
That is an interesting point. However, if you're taking the fact that disciples in Ephesus weren't baptized in the name of Jesus (recorded in Acts 19:1-7) and pitting it against what I said about the Greek of Acts 2:38, wouldn't you have to assume that those in Ephesus were disciples of Jesus (Christians) instead of disciples of John the Baptist? They were sincere, as their reaction shows, but this doesn't mean they didn't have to know about Jesus and His will before being saved. In fact, Paul himself was sincere his whole life (Acts 23:1), which includes when he persecuted Christians, but this didn't mean he never had sins to wash away (Acts 22:16).
Yes, they were disciples of Jesus after Paul taught them (Acts 19:3-4). Then, they were baptized in the name of Jesus (v. 5). But were they disciples before? Prior to Paul teaching and baptizing them, they clearly had a pre-resurrection education on Christianity, being baptized with only John's baptism (v. 3).Absolutely they were disciples of Jesus. Otherwise they would not have been baptised in Jesus' name by Paul. Which to me demonstrates the problem of being overly prescriptive about baptism. [...]
Baptism represents our death. We are crucified with Christ. What do you do with a dead body? You bury it. (Colossians 2:12, Romans 6:4) Baptism means that we accept God's judgement that we are worthy only of death and that there is no hope in the old nature. When we rise up from the water, it represents the resurrection to new life in Christ. That is the real significance of water baptism.
Baptism does not remove sin. Only the precious blood of Christ can do that.
The problem is that we need the whole picture. I was born again quite a while before I was baptised. That is because I knew nothing about believer's baptism. Once I received the teaching, I got baptised as soon as I could. What does it mean to be saved anyway? I believe there are 3 aspects. First, you get born again. I was convicted as a hopeless sinner. I said pretty much what the crowd said on the day Peter preached. "What can I do to be saved?" The spirit man is born again, or "saved" instantly. The soul is not saved immediately. It is progressive. Acts of obedience such as baptism are part of the salvation of the soul. Getting clean from known sin, taking up the cross and denying self are also to do with the soul. Finally, our bodies will be transformed and our salvation will be complete.Sorry for the long pause.
Yes, they were disciples of Jesus after Paul taught them (Acts 19:3-4). Then, they were baptized in the name of Jesus (v. 5). But were they disciples before? Prior to Paul teaching and baptizing them, they clearly had a pre-resurrection education on Christianity, being baptized with only John's baptism (v. 3).
If this example proves they were saved before Jesus' baptism, wouldn't it also prove that they were saved before having faith in Jesus's resurrection?
True. In fact, while 1 Peter 3:21 does say baptism saves, it's said to do so "through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." It's the same with faith; believing in Jesus doesn't earn salvation, but faith saves "by grace" (Eph. 2:8).
Acts 2:38 places the remission of sins after baptism by using the word eis, and 1 Peter 3:21 says baptism saves and explains how ("through the resurrection of Jesus Christ"). Also, Romans 6:1-7 (as you referenced) explains that baptism puts us into Christ's death and that "he who has died has been freed from sin" (v. 7, NKJV).
Therefore, I do believe we need baptism to be saved (as we need faith), but it obviously isn't the means of salvation. Only Christ's death, burial, and resurrection can serve as the foundational means of salvation.
I agree; as you said, being saved means more than going to heaven. Salvation is something we must work out with fear and trembling (Philippians 2:12). I hope I didn't come across as questioning your sincerity when you were convicted, as that isn't something I intended. A point I was trying to make is that sincerity isn't the point in which you're saved but requires knowledge.The problem is that we need the whole picture. I was born again quite a while before I was baptised. That is because I knew nothing about believer's baptism. Once I received the teaching, I got baptised as soon as I could. What does it mean to be saved anyway? I believe there are 3 aspects. First, you get born again. I was convicted as a hopeless sinner. I said pretty much what the crowd said on the day Peter preached. "What can I do to be saved?" The spirit man is born again, or "saved" instantly. The soul is not saved immediately. It is progressive. Acts of obedience such as baptism are part of the salvation of the soul. Getting clean from known sin, taking up the cross and denying self are also to do with the soul. Finally, our bodies will be transformed and our salvation will be complete.
Because many Christians do not see the salvation of the soul as an ongoing experience, it leads to much confusion. The word "saved" has come to mean going to heaven when you die. It is way more than that. I'm on the same page with Gideon300. His testimony is very similar to mine. There is a place in God that transcends the life that most Christians experience. It is called , "The knowledge of the Truth". Aim for that in prayerful humility and God will bring you to that place. It may be a difficult journey, but Lord Jesus will be there for you all the way.
Paul must have heard the gospel a number of times as he went around persecuting Christians. He was forgiven when he accepted that Lord Jesus died for his (Paul's) sins and rose again for his justification, same as anyone else. The crowd on the day of Pentecost were cut to the heart. Paul was also. He realised that he had been indirectly persecuting Lord Jesus.I agree; as you said, being saved means more than going to heaven. Salvation is something we must work out with fear and trembling (Philippians 2:12). I hope I didn't come across as questioning your sincerity when you were convicted, as that isn't something I intended. A point I was trying to make is that sincerity isn't the point in which you're saved but requires knowledge.
Paul was sincere his whole life, but when would you say his sins were forgiven?
Hello! Does the Bible teach a formula that is to be stated at baptism? Thanks!
What does the command to be baptized "in the name of Jesus Christ" (Acts 2:38) mean, though? Thanks!
what is the name though?
Jesus name is the name were given representing the father, son and Holy Ghost. The father isn't a name, the son, or Holy Ghost isn't a name......they only name given for salvation is Jesus Christ. When we are baptized it's because we believe in the messiah ...the manifestation of The fullness Of God revealed to mankind in the gospel.
the three remember are one father , word, Holy Ghost these three are one. The only name manifested to mankind is Jesus who is Christ.
Since "in the name of" can mean "by the authority of," is the main reason we orally say "of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" because of tradition rather than Scripture? I'm not saying this makes the oral statement wrong, obviously, but does the oral requirement stem from extrabiblical sources such as the Didache? In other words, do the Scriptures just teach that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit's authority, not an oral formula, is what's required? Thanks!"In the name of" can also mean "by the authority of". The Church baptizes by Christ's authority.
The way the Church has always performed the Rite has always been by pronouncing the three-fold name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. As we see in historical records, such as the Didache from the first century.
-CryptoLutheran
Amen! We all need to be more like the Ephesians. Another good example are the Bereans, who "were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so" (Acts 17:11, NKJV). To make sure I'm not misunderstood, here are two questions:Paul must have heard the gospel a number of times as he went around persecuting Christians. He was forgiven when he accepted that Lord Jesus died for his (Paul's) sins and rose again for his justification, same as anyone else. The crowd on the day of Pentecost were cut to the heart. Paul was also. He realised that he had been indirectly persecuting Lord Jesus.
I agree 100% with your point about sincerity. Unless an individual accepts that Lord Jesus died and rose again for them personally, it remains just a concept. Believing facts does not save anyone - I can testify to that!
I have no issue with anything you've said. It's easy to misunderstand what people write. That's one reason I tend to over explain things.
You make a good point about the Ephesian disciples Paul met. It may well be that they were not born again at that time. If not, they were certainly ready to accept Christ. If only there were more like them in our day!
Since "in the name of" can mean "by the authority of," is the main reason we orally say "of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" because of tradition rather than Scripture? I'm not saying this makes the oral statement wrong, obviously, but does the oral requirement stem from extrabiblical sources such as the Didache? In other words, do the Scriptures just teach that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit's authority, not an oral formula, is what's required? Thanks!
Hello again! Sorry for the late reply. To make sure I understand, you're saying that the oral formula comes from the Didache and tradition, not specifically the New Testament canon, right? (I support saying, "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" but am wondering if the reason for it comes from New Testament teaching or extrabiblical teaching.)What sources outside the Canon of Scripture show us is that Christians certainly believed that the formula "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" was really important. The Didache dates to between around 60-100 AD, making it as old as much of the New Testament books themselves, and represents views and practices concurrent with the Apostles themselves, or at least their immediate successors.
So even if there is no explicit command in the writings of the New Testament themselves, it's clear that Christians from the beginning, or at least very nearly the beginning, understood the three-fold name of the Trinity as a vitally important component of the baptismal rite.
This, coupled with the fact that alternative practices are condemned in the writings of the early Church because of their association with heretical movements, only solidifies the importance of the three-fold name as a mark of orthodox teaching and practice. So, for example, we know that there were heretics who used a formula of "In the name of Jesus" for their baptismal rite; as such the use of such a formula being identified with such clear and blatant heresy reinforced the importance of the normative, orthodox practice.
It may not have been such a big a deal from the beginning, but it would become a big deal on account of the theological controversies of the early centuries. And, considering this remains a case even today, with modern heretics such as the "Jesus Name Only" groups, aka "Oneness"; it remains an important and vital part of our confession of faith that we baptize the way we do. In Latin we might call this in statu confessionis, "in a state of confession", by which all things being equal it may not be the most important issue; but rather necessity demands making a stand to confess the truth of the Christian faith over and against error.
-CryptoLutheran
Hello again! Sorry for the late reply. To make sure I understand, you're saying that the oral formula comes from the Didache and tradition, not specifically the New Testament canon, right? (I support saying, "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" but am wondering if the reason for it comes from New Testament teaching or extrabiblical teaching.)
I think I see. We use this language in baptism, but it's not the language itself that requires us to say it. In other words, here are two meanings of Matthew 28:19:The language comes from the New Testament. Early Christians took Jesus' words in the Great Commission as the language of the baptismal rite.
-CryptoLutheran