Baptism for salvation questions

i hate to rain on everybody's parade, but everybody is wrong! what a minister says over a baptismal candidate by invocation is more traditional than biblical. The bible commands the believer to call on the name of the Lord. When Paul was baptized, he was told to go call on the name of the Lord for himself. On the day of pentecost, every believer baptized themselves in the cleansing pools calling on the name of the Lord. Romans 10:8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; 9That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
Acts 22:12 And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt there, 13Came unto me, and stood, and said unto me, Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And the same hour I looked up upon him. 14And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth. 15For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard. 16And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
This doctrine about what somebody says over you is from catholicism and the doctrine of substantiation, or the minsiter taking the place of the candidate. Each beliver is commanded to call on the name of the Lord for themselves!!! Anything that is not of faith is sin and if it does not come from the heart of the believer, it has no value. New testament baptism was tied to the mosaic law of cleasing and identification for new belivers.

[RevDWW]

Originally Posted by Willy Jacks

can you show where any baptismal formula was actually use "in the name of Jesus," in the Bible?

Acts 2:37 - Acts 2:41 (KJV) 37 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?
38 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.
39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
40And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.
41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

Seems those that heard and obeyed Peter were added to the church.........

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Willy Jacks

I disagree with her. If she is right then Jesus was wrong and the gates of hell did over power the church.

that's just your assertion.

Jesus said on this rock I will build my church. The church he is speaking of is the church built on the rock. When it is built on the rock it is unmovable. That does not mean Jesus meant "There will be an unbroken chain of the church passed on from generation to generation and visible" etc etc...that's something Rome invented when it also invented Apostolic succession.

If this was true in the absolute sense, there should have still been churches of Jerusalem and other places that remained as they were in the first century to this day with NO false doctrine. IF this is true we should all have gone back and joined Rome and not argued with her over doctrine. There would have been a church like the modern Protestant, Trinitarian church, all through out history and not rather being recovered around the time of Luther. There never would be a Laodecian church in the bible that fell away.

Again, all this verse is stating very simply is that Christ's church would be the one that builds on the Rock. Any church that is NOT built on the rock would not prevail against the gates of hell.

That's far different from Christ saying "The gates of Hell will not prevail against my church"..so in context Jesus was not predicting His church would be a visible monolithic movement that continued to grow despite having false doctrines, starting wars, persecuting anyone that did not agree with them. selling indulgencies, having popes that were corrupt men (and women?).

That would mean "God is gonna have Himself a visible church organization no matter how corrupt and heretical they are"....

The church is the body of believers...they are believers in Him. The church is powerful so long as they rest in the Lord and not in man.

[Adino]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Right...baptism in Jesus name becomes irrelevant. It seems that the Oneness Pentecostal identity is being washed out yet again. Yes in history there were those that believed in baptism in Jesus name. What happened to them? And yes there were those that held to a modalistic view....and what happened to them? There were even those that believed in the gifts of the Spirit and healing...and historically they too disappeared.

However it would be short sighted to say just because water baptism does not in and of itself save someone that it has NOTHING to do with salvation. Biblically speaking the only people who were baptized were those that JUST put their faith in Christ and repented of their sins. There was no such thing as a waiting period putting baptism off for a later time. To them it was very important to salvation. They whats and whys and hows were not something to be questioned or argued. They simply obeyed.


I would argue baptism IS a part of the "gospel", though that might depend on what someone means by the gospel. What you say here sort of clashes with the first statement. I always find it odd when someone declares baptism is NOT for salvation, and they feel they have scriptures for that. Then they declare what baptism is for, to declare his repentance and faith in Christ, but I never see scriptures for that. Might I add though, if this is true and Jesus said that to deny him before men would mean He would deny them before the Father..if one rejects being baptized are they or can they still be saved?


Don't the Church of Christ people do it in Jesus name? Although they do believe it is salvational

Prax, I do make a distinction between the Gospel and baptism while I also understand that baptism presents a beautiful picture of that Gospel. It is the Gospel dramatized, but it is not the Gospel itself.

I do understand baptism is very close to the Gospel in that it declares, like I said, the believer's repentance and faith "in the Gospel." Remember Christ said he that believeth (the Gospel) and is baptized shall be saved. Christ makes a very clear distinction between the Gospel and baptism. Paul does the same when he said that he was not sent to baptize but to preach the Gospel.

I agree that ALL who believe/are saved should be baptized. The purpose though is not to be saved in the eyes of God. He knows the heart and recognizes the regenerative work He's performed in the confines of the soul. We, on the other hand, as mere men, do not know the innermost hearts of men so we must have a criteria by which we accept someone into the church at large "as being saved." Christ said that his Church was to be built upon the rock of an open confession in Him. Baptism was the time at which a believer openly declared his repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus.

Confession "unto salvation" was made before the community at large. Salvation in the eyes of God? No. Salvation in the eyes of our peers. With the heart man believeth unto righteousness (i.e., unto salvation before God) but with the mouth confession is made unto salvation (before our peers) [Romans 10:10]. Baptism was the time at which an open confession in Christ was declared. Only those who made such a confession were to be given the right hand of fellowship and welcomed in the Christian community at large.

Baptism was "the answer of a good conscience toward God" (1Peter 3:21). A good conscience of one's right standing before God was required prior to getting dunked. Water baptism is not supposed to be administered to anyone who does not have the full assurance of faith that he has been freed from sin by the work of Christ (Hebrews 10:22). Baptism was the time at which an inquiry was made concerning the conscience toward God.

Baptism was the "answer (eperotema) of a good conscience toward God" (1Peter 3:21). The word "eperotema" was a word used in court settings when a witness was inquired of his pledge to tell the truth. If I remember correctly, it was Tertullian who pointed out that water baptism was the time at which a new believer was asked concerning his "good conscience toward God" concerning sin. This "inquiry" (eperotema) of faith was directed toward every baptismal candidate. The candidate who did not feel free from the guilt of sin did not have true faith in the sin remitting work of Christ. Only those who have "full assurance of faith" in the Lord Jesus Christ and have a good conscience toward God are to be baptized. In other words, only those who truly believe the Gospel are to be baptized and considered saved by the Church.

Originally Posted by johnmark93

Mizpeh, this is one of the best posts I have ever viewed. Grand Slam!

Why are we even discussing this on AFF? I thought Trinitarians weren't allowed to push their views on others?

This thread was not started for people to "Slam" on other people. Also, please re-read my thread, it said nothing about "trinitarians" or pushing their views.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Adino

Prax, I do make a distinction between the Gospel and baptism while I also understand that baptism presents a beautiful picture of that Gospel. It is the Gospel dramatized, but it is not the Gospel itself.

I do understand baptism is very close to the Gospel in that it declares, like I said, the believer's repentance and faith "in the Gospel." Remember Christ said he that believeth (the Gospel) and is baptized shall be saved. Christ makes a very clear distinction between the Gospel and baptism. Paul does the same when he said that he was not sent to baptize but to preach the Gospel.

I agree that ALL who believe/are saved should be baptized. The purpose though is not to be saved in the eyes of God. He knows the heart and recognizes the regenerative work He's performed in the confines of the soul. We, on the other hand, as mere men, do not know the innermost hearts of men so we must have a criteria by which we accept someone into the church at large "as being saved." Christ said that his Church was to be built upon the rock of an open confession in Him. Baptism was the time at which a believer openly declared his repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus.

Confession "unto salvation" was made before the community at large. Salvation in the eyes of God? No. Salvation in the eyes of our peers. With the heart man believeth unto righteousness (i.e., unto salvation before God) but with the mouth confession is made unto salvation (before our peers) [Romans 10:10]. Baptism was the time at which an open confession in Christ was declared. Only those who made such a confession were to be given the right hand of fellowship and welcomed in the Christian community at large.

Baptism was "the answer of a good conscience toward God" (1Peter 3:21). A good conscience of one's right standing before God was required prior to getting dunked. Water baptism is not supposed to be administered to anyone who does not have the full assurance of faith that he has been freed from sin by the work of Christ (Hebrews 10:22). Baptism was the time at which an inquiry was made concerning the conscience toward God.

Baptism was the "answer (eperotema) of a good conscience toward God" (1Peter 3:21). The word "eperotema" was a word used in court settings when a witness was inquired of his pledge to tell the truth. If I remember correctly, it was Tertullian who pointed out that water baptism was the time at which a new believer was asked concerning his "good conscience toward God" concerning sin. This "inquiry" (eperotema) of faith was directed toward every baptismal candidate. The candidate who did not feel free from the guilt of sin did not have true faith in the sin remitting work of Christ. Only those who have "full assurance of faith" in the Lord Jesus Christ and have a good conscience toward God are to be baptized. In other words, only those who truly believe the Gospel are to be baptized and considered saved by the Church.

I have to leave for a while, but can you define what "the gospel" means? In the strictest most literal sense I would define that to mean simply What Jesus did for us etc etc...however even when that was done in Acts the question was asked "what must I do to be saved"...the answer was believe on Jesus...looking at all the accounts we know that includes repentance too. So in a looser sense I would say the gospel includes not only preaching Jesus but telling them what they need to do as a result of the conviction of their sins and hearing about what Jesus did for us so that we could be forgiven and born again. Where you go from there though is where we get the differences

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Many Trinitarians believe those who don't believe in the Trinity are lost. That view is considered harsh as well, I suppose.

Bob, I believe baptism in Jesus' name is for the remission of sins not because of the remission of sins. Jesus died to take away the sins of the world. If one is not baptized in his name, they are still in their sins. To not have one's sins remitted defeats the whole purpose of why Jesus came into the world.

How can I make that any more palatable for you? If I did try to sugar coat it I would be dishonest.

can you show scripture that says "if a person is not baptized a certian way" they are still in their sins?

[SDG]

These scriptures she will share in no way indicate an invocation by a third party mitgates/activates/ remission of sins... calling upon the name has a deep history in scripture and meaning ... that begins in the old testament.... it connotes a cry for aid [salvation] and its always personal -- not hinging on the officiator of a ceremony but by the believer.

Here are some scriptures to show what I mean:
The Uses of to Call the Name of the LORD

Genesis 4:26 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.

Genesis 12:8 And he removed from thence unto a mountain on the east of Bethel, and pitched his tent, having Bethel on the west, and Hai on the east: and there he builded an altar unto the LORD, and called upon the name of the LORD.

Genesis 13:4 Unto the place of the altar, which he had made there at the first: and there Abram called on the name of the LORD.

Genesis 21:33 And Abraham planted a grove in Beersheba, and called there on the name of the LORD, the everlasting God.

Genesis 26:25 And he builded an altar there, and called upon the name of the LORD, and pitched his tent there: and there Isaac's servants digged a well.

1 Kings 18:24 And call ye on the name of your gods, and I will call on the name of the LORD: and the God that answereth by fire, let him be God. And all the people answered and said, It is well spoken.

2 Kings 5:11 But Naaman was wroth, and went away, and said, Behold, I thought, He will surely come out to me, and stand, and call on the name of the LORD his God, and strike his hand over the place, and recover the leper.

Joel 2:32 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call.

Psalm 116:4 Then called I upon the name of the LORD; O LORD, I beseech thee, deliver my soul.

Psalm 116:13 I will take the cup of salvation, and call upon the name of the LORD.

Psalm 116:17 I will offer to thee the sacrifice of thanksgiving, and will call upon the name of the LORD.

Joel 2:32 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call.

Zephaniah 3:9 For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I have to leave for a while, but can you define what "the gospel" means? In the strictest most literal sense I would define that to mean simply What Jesus did for us etc etc...however even when that was done in Acts the question was asked "what must I do to be saved"...the answer was believe on Jesus...looking at all the accounts we know that includes repentance too. So in a looser sense I would say the gospel includes not only preaching Jesus but telling them what they need to do as a result of the conviction of their sins and hearing about what Jesus did for us so that we could be forgiven and born again. Where you go from there though is where we get the differences

Without trying to promote any doctine, I am left with only posting scriptures without being able to make my point. So, I'll allow the Apostle Paul to take my place.

1 Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand,

2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.

3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,

4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

According to scripture, this is the Gospel that Paul recieved from Jesus Himself, and which he taught.

[SDG]

No one is refuting that all our deeds should be done in Jesus name ... ... nor is anyone advocating that the name should not be invoked or called upon during baptism..... clearly it's biblical ... the question is who does the invoking and for what purpose.

We should call upon the name Jesus when we pray, first come to repentance, cast out demons and drive our car ... but the power is not in the incantation of the name ... or in it's vain repetition as some have become accustomed to

the power is in Him that has given the authority and he who has the power and in everything His name represents

.... nor does someone else calling upon it effectuate remission for another believer. I don't see that in scripture ... I see the opposite in Romans.

I know that's what all of us believe .... that it's not just the name but in who possesses the power...

but when we examine soteriological issues some would make the incantation of the name by the baptizer the be all and end all to effectuating remission.

The following scriptures make evident that simple invocation is not enough ....

Acts 19:13-16: "Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth. And there were seven sons of one Sceva, a Jew, and chief of the priests, which did so. And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye? And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded."

Matthew 10:1: "And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease."

Matthew 17:15-18: "And I brought him to thy disciples, and they could not cure him. Then Jesus answered and said, O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? bring him hither to me. And Jesus rebuked the devil; and he departed out of him: and the child was cured from that very hour."

One has to assume they tried to in the name of Jesus.

"Not everyone who says to Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name? And then I will declare to them, I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness" (Matthew 7:21-23).

Evidently, simply knowing the name and using it ... is not God's measuring stick to salvation.

We are stating simply that invocation of the name by a third party does not mitigate salvation ...

Do I see precedent in the scriptures for this ....yes ...

do I see precedent to baptize in the power and authority given to us by Jesus ... yes ... onama ... indicates this .... in the Greek.

Is there anything wrong or damnable in baptizing in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost when we know that His name is Jesus ... no.

Do I see a 1st century pattern of baptisms performed in the name of the Lord Jesus, or Jesus Christ. to be biblical ... yes ...

Do I see dialogs of baptisms of apostles stating "I baptize you in Jesus name" ... no.

Nor will I find every sermon preached to unbelievers by Peter and Paul in Act that state that baptism is salvific ... sometimes is not even mentioned.

In each sermon they do require repentance and true belief, however.

But interestingly enough when we examine the dialog between Philip and the eunuch ... it seems important to Philip ... to know that the Eunuch confessed Jesus as the Son of God prior to immersing him ... it gives one pause ... to think that it was this confession of the name Jesus and a repentant heart that led to his salvation. Philip baptized him in this name ... invoking the authority given to him to do so ... but it wasn't the act in of itself that applied the blood for remission .... nor the incantation.
__________________