Why Acts 2:38 Uses The Word “remission”

[Sherri]

Originally Posted by rrford

We do understand the power and authority attached to a name and a command. Some were baptized, if you will, unto John. Some unto Christ.

Regardless of how one feels about whether it is the baptizer or the baptizee, we do have the example of the apostles that it was the name of the Lord that was called upon, or, in other wirds, the authority of Jesus Christ was invoked at baptism.

We do all this, but some on here still criticize us for not using their exact wording. Just trying to be Biblical....

[rrford]

Originally Posted by Sherri

We do all this, but some on here still criticize us for not using their exact wording. Just trying to be Biblical....

I think the issue is that the Word bears out the usage of the singular name of Jesus Christ. Why folks want to avoid that is beyond me.

[Sherri]

Originally Posted by rrford

I think the issue is that the Word bears out the usage of the singular name of Jesus Christ. Why folks want to avoid that is beyond me.

Matthew 28:19 is also the Word. We just quote it first and then put them under in the name of Jesus. You sure can't say that's not biblical.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Sherri

Matthew 28:19 is also the Word. We just quote it first and then put them under in the name of Jesus. You sure can't say that's not biblical.

Isn't in the name of the Lord also biblical

[Sherri]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Isn't in the name of the Lord also biblical

I wouldn't say they would be lost, but for us, we will always put someone under the water in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, because that's how we understand it.

[rrford]

Originally Posted by Sherri

Matthew 28:19 is also the Word. We just quote it first and then put them under in the name of Jesus. You sure can't say that's not biblical.

Nope. I couldn't. I reckon the difference is I see no necessity of using Matthew 28:19 but I do see the necessity of using the name of Jesus Christ.

[rrford]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Isn't in the name of the Lord also biblical

Isn't using the actual name Biblical?

[Jack Shephard]

Originally Posted by Sherri

I wouldn't say they would be lost, but for us, we will always put someone under the water in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, because that's how we understand it.

I know what you are talking about here, Sherri. I know there are a many that do this. Some see it as a way of compromising, but I do not see it that way. I think as long as you say the name of Jesus before immersion, as you do, then it does not matter. Infact, it speaks more to you believing the oneness of God more than anything else. ...In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, which is Jesus Christ. I do not see how people can say that is wrong. For decades the "Oneness" church has been almost against Matt 28:19....that is the trinitarians verse, etc. You hit the nail square when you asked is this not Bible too. I commend you.

[Steve Epley]

The problem is in reality some folks despise Jesus Name and the reproach it carries. The Apostles were beaten and commanded not to SPEAK of TEACH in the Name.
Now these folks do not think the Name has to be SPOKEN thus a silent or dumb baptism will suffice.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by JTULLOCK

I know what you are talking about here, Sherri. I know there are a many that do this. Some see it as a way of compromising, but I do not see it that way. I think as long as you say the name of Jesus before immersion, as you do, then it does not matter. Infact, it speaks more to you believing the oneness of God more than anything else. ...In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, which is Jesus Christ. I do not see how people can say that is wrong. For decades the "Oneness" church has been almost against Matt 28:19....that is the trinitarians verse, etc. You hit the nail square when you asked is this not Bible too. I commend you.

You nailed it JT.