Acts 2:38 is hidden from Christendom like Jesus is hidden from the blinded Jews

[Randy Kluth]

The apostles always and only baptized in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins.

Again, this has nothing to do with the Godhead, because many that don't think Jesus is God but only the messiah etc, use the titles and refuse the actual name of Jesus.

I am not oneness.

I am not trinitarian.

I am not unitarian etc.

The "formula" to solve the puzzle of whom the name of the son is per Matt 28:19, is found in Acts 2:38.

This which I just said has divided the first century church from the RCC and her constituents.

She(RCC) started this whole mess and everyone that adheres to it are her daughters..

Sorry, not seeing it. Christians of every sort accept Acts 2.38 and Matt 28.19. If you're just arguing a particular quirky interpretation of Acts 2.38, it seems that the problem may be with your interpretation, and not with those who might disagree with it?

You seem caught up on what "Jesus' name" means? Jesus' name just refers to who he is, as the Son of God. He is God in the flesh, our redeemer from sin.

When we get baptized in Jesus' name, we are associating with Jesus spiritually so that we die with him to our flesh and live with him spiritually via his resurrection. We do not yet reign as immortals in heaven, as he is, but he is there to represent our hope so that we get there.

Finding a correct meaning for a Baptismal Formula misses the whole point, which has to do with spiritually identifying with Jesus, and living for him through the Spirit. Let's major on the important things and leave speculation about the peripheral things in the rear or on the side? It's way too easy to get sidetracked on things of negligible importance when the big items are right in front of us!

 

[Illuminator]

No, I am not.

Randy, nearly all Christians per capita have disobeyed and dismissed Acts 2:38, from the RCC, Protestantism to Mormonism.

They all dismiss Acts 2:38 as in one mind and one accord.

Only few obey it.

Sure.

The RCC skips Acts 2:38 for the titles.

The mainline denominations do the same.

The JW's also baptize in the titles.

The Mormons baptize in the titles.

The Baptists...

The independents....

They all fight Acts 2:38.

Even the seminary is risen up as a supreme goal to attempt to debunk Jesus name baptism.

In the context of Acts 2, the phrase “in the name of Jesus Christ” was not a liturgical formula, but a way of distinguishing Christian baptism from the baptism of John the Baptist (cf. Acts 19:1-5). Matthew 28:19 shows that awareness and acceptance of the Holy Trinity is also necessary. Hence, in context, Peter mentions the Holy Spirit: “Repent, and be baptized . . . and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” God the Father is included in the next verse as well: “For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.”

Moreover, fairly explicit trinitarianism is present in Acts 2:32-33, in the same sermon on the Day of Pentecost:
This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses. Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this which you see and hear.

The passage in Acts 2:38 is not intended as a formula and doesn’t record an actual baptism or the words spoken during it (because Peter is commanding baptism for all Christians, not actually performing it). In any event, to use the phrase “baptized in Jesus’ name” (in a non-formulaic way) does not theologically contradict the trinitarian baptismal formula.

The baptismal formula adopted by the Church in its rite and sacrament of baptism from the beginning is the one recorded in Matthew 28:19. We see this in the Didache, a very important apostolic writing, dated as early as 60-70 A.D., which places it earlier than even some biblical books. In this work we find the following passage (7:1):
read the rest here

Bottom line: You grossly misinterpret Acts 2:38 because it is not intended as a formula and doesn’t record an actual baptism or the words spoken during it (because Peter is commanding baptism for all Christians, not actually performing it) and you reject explicit trinitarianism in Acts 2:32-33.

Please stop drum pounding Acts 2:38, you are making a fool of yourself.

 

[Illuminator]

In the context of Acts 2, the phrase “in the name of Jesus Christ” was not a liturgical formula, but a way of distinguishing Christian baptism from the baptism of John the Baptist (cf. Acts 19:1-5).

John 1:32 – when Jesus was baptized, He was baptized in the water and the Spirit, which descended upon Him in the form of a dove. The Holy Spirit and water are required for baptism. Also, Jesus’ baptism was not the Christian baptism He later instituted. Jesus’ baptism was instead a royal anointing of the Son of David (Jesus) conferred by a Levite (John the Baptist) to reveal Christ to Israel, as it was foreshadowed in 1 Kings 1:39 when the Son of David (Solomon) was anointed by the Levitical priest Zadok. See John 1:31; cf. Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:9; Luke 3:21.

Mark 3:16 And Jesus when he was baptized, went up straightway from the water: and lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, (Holy Spirit) and coming upon him; 17 and lo, a voice out of the heavens, (Voice of the Father) saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

This is explicit trinitarianism, summarized in two verses.

 

[Truther]

Sorry, not seeing it. Christians of every sort accept Acts 2.38 and Matt 28.19. If you're just arguing a particular quirky interpretation of Acts 2.38, it seems that the problem may be with your interpretation, and not with those who might disagree with it?

You seem caught up on what "Jesus' name" means? Jesus' name just refers to who he is, as the Son of God. He is God in the flesh, our redeemer from sin.

When we get baptized in Jesus' name, we are associating with Jesus spiritually so that we die with him to our flesh and live with him spiritually via his resurrection. We do not yet reign as immortals in heaven, as he is, but he is there to represent our hope so that we get there.

Finding a correct meaning for a Baptismal Formula misses the whole point, which has to do with spiritually identifying with Jesus, and living for him through the Spirit. Let's major on the important things and leave speculation about the peripheral things in the rear or on the side? It's way too easy to get sidetracked on things of negligible importance when the big items are right in front of us!

Here is the test...

What is the name of the son per Matt 28:19?

A....Son.

B...Jesus.

C....none of the above.


Just pick one only.

 

[Truther]

In the context of Acts 2, the phrase “in the name of Jesus Christ” was not a liturgical formula, but a way of distinguishing Christian baptism from the baptism of John the Baptist (cf. Acts 19:1-5). Matthew 28:19 shows that awareness and acceptance of the Holy Trinity is also necessary. Hence, in context, Peter mentions the Holy Spirit: “Repent, and be baptized . . . and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” God the Father is included in the next verse as well: “For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.”

Moreover, fairly explicit trinitarianism is present in Acts 2:32-33, in the same sermon on the Day of Pentecost:
This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses. Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this which you see and hear.

The passage in Acts 2:38 is not intended as a formula and doesn’t record an actual baptism or the words spoken during it (because Peter is commanding baptism for all Christians, not actually performing it). In any event, to use the phrase “baptized in Jesus’ name” (in a non-formulaic way) does not theologically contradict the trinitarian baptismal formula.

The baptismal formula adopted by the Church in its rite and sacrament of baptism from the beginning is the one recorded in Matthew 28:19. We see this in the Didache, a very important apostolic writing, dated as early as 60-70 A.D., which places it earlier than even some biblical books. In this work we find the following passage (7:1):
read the rest here

Bottom line: You grossly misinterpret Acts 2:38 because it is not intended as a formula and doesn’t record an actual baptism or the words spoken during it (because Peter is commanding baptism for all Christians, not actually performing it) and you reject explicit trinitarianism in Acts 2:32-33.

Please stop drum pounding Acts 2:38, you are making a fool of yourself.

You skipped the middle of Acts 2:38..."in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins"...

I saw that.

You are anti-Jesus' name.

You know that it is the name of Jesus that remits sins, but there is something inside you that wants to remove the name of Jesus from remitting folks' sins.

You need to find out what is going on inside you that compels you to do that.

Halloween is over.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Here is the test...

What is the name of the son per Matt 28:19?

A....Son.

B...Jesus.

C....none of the above.


Just pick one only.

You're using the name of "Jesus" like a mantra. Abracadabra. Really? Jesus' name isn't magic. It just represents a unique person with unique qualities that need to be acknowledged, as opposed to relying on non-divine sources.

 

[Truther]

You're using the name of "Jesus" like a mantra. Abracadabra. Really? Jesus' name isn't magic. It just represents a unique person with unique qualities that need to be acknowledged, as opposed to relying on non-divine sources.

Was this Peter's "mantra"???...

6 Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk....

16 And his name through faith in his name hath made this man strong,...


....or was speaking Jesus' name by faith the method used by Peter via God to provide the miracle?

Baptism in the name of Jesus(spoken name) does the similar miracle as per remission of sins.

God honors it equally as other miracles.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Was this Peter's "mantra"???...

6 Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk....

16 And his name through faith in his name hath made this man strong,...


....or was speaking Jesus' name by faith the method used by Peter via God to provide the miracle?

Baptism in the name of Jesus(spoken name) does the similar miracle as per remission of sins.

God honors it equally as other miracles.

No, I think a whole lot more goes into "in Jesus' name" than you are making out. For example, anybody on the street using Jesus' name to heal the sick would quickly find out the "mantra" thing doesn't work.

1 John 5.14 This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us. 15 And if we know that he hears us—whatever we ask—we know that we have what we asked of him.

One must see who Jesus is, live by him, and know him well enough to know what his will is before you can use his name. You're not remotely suggesting that.

 

[Illuminator]

No, I think a whole lot more goes into "in Jesus' name" than you are making out. For example, anybody on the street using Jesus' name to heal the sick would quickly find out the "mantra" thing doesn't work.

1 John 5.14 This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us. 15 And if we know that he hears us—whatever we ask—we know that we have what we asked of him.

One must see who Jesus is, live by him, and know him well enough to know what his will is before you can use his name...

Precisely.

Luke 11:37-38

The Greek word for “wash” here is ebaptizthe.

Mark 7:3-4

The words for purify and washing in verse 4 are baptisontai and baptismous, respectively.

Given the ritual-washing “baptisms” that were prevalent in the first century, is it any wonder that Peter and the apostles in the book of Acts would want to distinguish between sacramental baptism “in Jesus’ name” and other kinds of “baptisms”?

Some respond to this argument by saying that the apostle Paul commanded: “And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him” (Col. 3:17). Peter adds: “the name of Jesus Christ . . . there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:10-12).

So shouldn’t we baptize “in the name of Jesus”? And the answer is yes! It is precisely because we can be saved only “in the name of Jesus” that we must baptize the way he taught us: in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

read more here

 

[Truther]

No, I think a whole lot more goes into "in Jesus' name" than you are making out. For example, anybody on the street using Jesus' name to heal the sick would quickly find out the "mantra" thing doesn't work.

1 John 5.14 This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us. 15 And if we know that he hears us—whatever we ask—we know that we have what we asked of him.

One must see who Jesus is, live by him, and know him well enough to know what his will is before you can use his name. You're not remotely suggesting that.

The same Peter per Acts chapter 2 that said be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins used the name of Jesus Christ to heal the lame man per Acts chapter 3. Was that an accident or was it done on purpose?

Do you refuse to use the name of Jesus Christ in water baptism for the remission of sins yet only want to see miracles in the name of Jesus Christ? Does that resemble a statement that Jesus made in the gospels?
You know, those that cast out devils in his name and healed the sick in his name that he never, ever knew?

 

[Randy Kluth]

The same Peter per Acts chapter 2 that said be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins used the name of Jesus Christ to heal the lame man per Acts chapter 3. Was that an accident or was it done on purpose?

As I just stated, men who use Jesus' name properly already know how to be led by the Spirit. They prayed for the healing of the man as they were led by the Spirit. If they had not been so led, they could've prayed for healing all night long in Jesus' name and accomplished nothing!

Do you refuse to use the name of Jesus Christ in water baptism for the remission of sins yet only want to see miracles in the name of Jesus Christ? Does that resemble a statement that Jesus made in the gospels?
You know, those that cast out devils in his name and healed the sick in his name that he never, ever knew?

Yes, and those who claim to have a leg up on "Jesus' name" may not be recognized by Jesus either. You have to use his name properly, and not use it "in vain." God will not hold him guiltless who uses his name in vain. This isn't about cursing and swearing--this is about misrepresenting his name. It's about misrepresenting what he is like.

I never used Jesus' name in Water Baptism for the remission of sins. Sins were remitted at the cross, and I accepted that by faith. When I began to live a life of faith, whenever that was, my sins were forgiven. I began to live in the life that Jesus' atonement made possible, and that life has been a life in which my sins were atoned for.

Water Baptism is merely a public pronunciation of the fact I had already chosen to live a life of faith in Christ. It was not the beginning point of my journey, but an initial proclamation to the world that I am a Christian. I actually got baptized as a baby, which is for Christian families a kind of dedication.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Precisely.

Luke 11:37-38

The Greek word for “wash” here is ebaptizthe.

Mark 7:3-4

The words for purify and washing in verse 4 are baptisontai and baptismous, respectively.

Given the ritual-washing “baptisms” that were prevalent in the first century, is it any wonder that Peter and the apostles in the book of Acts would want to distinguish between sacramental baptism “in Jesus’ name” and other kinds of “baptisms”?

Some respond to this argument by saying that the apostle Paul commanded: “And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him” (Col. 3:17). Peter adds: “the name of Jesus Christ . . . there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:10-12).

So shouldn’t we baptize “in the name of Jesus”? And the answer is yes! It is precisely because we can be saved only “in the name of Jesus” that we must baptize the way he taught us: in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

Amen. I was actually baptized as an infant, which was actually a form of dedication, since I was too young to have been doing it myself. Parents don't want children to begin their lives as pagans, but as Christians. It is up to the child and the parents to grow in the faith to which they were dedicated.

I don't believe water baptism is salvation. Rather, it reflects Salvation in its display of a symbolic washing away of sin. It is important for the new Christian to openly and publicly portray their faith to the world so that there is no ambiguity about his or her choice to live for Christ.

 

[Truther]

As I just stated, men who use Jesus' name properly already know how to be led by the Spirit. They prayed for the healing of the man as they were led by the Spirit. If they had not been so led, they could've prayed for healing all night long in Jesus' name and accomplished nothing!



Yes, and those who claim to have a leg up on "Jesus' name" may not be recognized by Jesus either. You have to use his name properly, and not use it "in vain." God will not hold him guiltless who uses his name in vain. This isn't about cursing and swearing--this is about misrepresenting his name. It's about misrepresenting what he is like.

I never used Jesus' name in Water Baptism for the remission of sins. Sins were remitted at the cross, and I accepted that by faith. When I began to live a life of faith, whenever that was, my sins were forgiven. I began to live in the life that Jesus' atonement made possible, and that life has been a life in which my sins were atoned for.

Water Baptism is merely a public pronunciation of the fact I had already chosen to live a life of faith in Christ. It was not the beginning point of my journey, but an initial proclamation to the world that I am a Christian. I actually got baptized as a baby, which is for Christian families a kind of dedication.

So, the improper way to remit sins is to say "in the name of Jesus", keeping his name out of it and just having sins remitted by our varying level of faith in Jesus?

We remit our own sins now?

Why did Jesus tell his disciples that "whosoever sins ye remit, they are remitted..."?

Can someone else's faith also remit our sins or was it by baptizing verbally in the name of Jesus per Acts 2, 8, 10 and 19?

 

[Randy Kluth]

So, the improper way to remit sins is to say "in the name of Jesus", keeping his name out of it and just having sins remitted by our varying level of faith in Jesus?

We remit our own sins now?

Why did Jesus tell his disciples that "whosoever sins ye remit, they are remitted..."?

Can someone else's faith also remit our sins or was it by baptizing verbally in the name of Jesus per Acts 2, 8, 10 and 19?

Jesus' gave us, his disciples, authority to declare Christ's own forgiveness of sins available to those who repent in his name. His atonement took place *at the cross.* The remission of sins was made available *at the cross.* We have to accept that, repent of our sins, and begin living a life of faith if his atonement is to apply to us.

It is when we renounce our own independent way of life that the atonement of Christ actually begins to apply to us, even though that provision was made legally 2000 years ago. Unless we repent, how can we be forgiven? But when our repentance is backed up by a change in life, by beginning to rely on his Spirit for our decision-making, repentance is proven and Christ's atonement begins to apply to us. Our sins are remitted.

 

[Truther]

Jesus' gave us, his disciples, authority to declare Christ's own forgiveness of sins available to those who repent in his name. His atonement took place *at the cross.* The remission of sins was made available *at the cross.* We have to accept that, repent of our sins, and begin living a life of faith if his atonement is to apply to us.

It is when we renounce our own independent way of life that the atonement of Christ actually begins to apply to us, even though that provision was made legally 2000 years ago. Unless we repent, how can we be forgiven? But when our repentance is backed up by a change in life, by beginning to rely on his Spirit for our decision-making, repentance is proven and Christ's atonement begins to apply to us. Our sins are remitted.

So, Jesus said this?...

....authority to declare Christ's own forgiveness of sins available to those who repent in his name. His atonement took place *at the cross.*


Or this?...


Whose soever sins you remit, they are remitted to them; and whose soever sins you retain,...

....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,....

 

[Randy Kluth]

So, Jesus said this?...

....authority to declare Christ's own forgiveness of sins available to those who repent in his name. His atonement took place *at the cross.*


Or this?...


Whose soever sins you remit, they are remitted to them; and whose soever sins you retain,...

....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,....

Yes, when we put in motion that atonement that Christ legally provided for us *at the Cross,* we are able to experience the remission of sins. Water Baptism does not provide anything more than a public confirmation of what we've already chosen to do, of what we've already begun to experience the moment we turned our lives over to Christ. It is the *act of repentance* that initates the experience of the remission of sins. Without repentance there cannot be an experience of redemption, the forgiveness of sins. How can you be forgiven unless you actually repent?

The same is true when we administer Christ's Grace, as a testimony to others. They can respond to our testimony as a form of God's word to them, repent and immediately experience the remission of sins. But the work of redemption was actually accomplished at the Cross. It begins to apply to us *when we repent.* When God's word touches our heart, and we respond to it in a real way, then we experience forgiveness at that point. Our sins are remitted.

 

[Randy Kluth]

So, the improper way to remit sins is to say "in the name of Jesus", keeping his name out of it and just having sins remitted by our varying level of faith in Jesus?

We remit our own sins now?

Why did Jesus tell his disciples that "whosoever sins ye remit, they are remitted..."?

Can someone else's faith also remit our sins or was it by baptizing verbally in the name of Jesus per Acts 2, 8, 10 and 19?

No, a minister of Christ's word brings *God's word* to bear in someone's life, and they are responding to *God* when they repent. As I told you before, "in God's name" is not using a mantra, or a magic, coded word. Rather, it means we are representing truth about Jesus, who is the source and authority of the remission of sins. He proved that at the Cross, and we are using that act, that authority, to appeal to for forgiveness of sins.

God's word comes to us in a number of forms, largely testimonials through Christians, which combined with God's word to our conscience, convicts us that we need to turn our lives over to following the way of Jesus. When we do so, we are in fact acting "in the name of Jesus," and not in the name of Mohammad or any other so-called "prophet." We are acting in the name of a divine man who alone provided for atonement of sin leading to eternal life.

 

[Truther]

Yes, when we put in motion that atonement that Christ legally provided for us *at the Cross,* we are able to experience the remission of sins. Water Baptism does not provide anything more than a public confirmation of what we've already chosen to do, of what we've already begun to experience the moment we turned our lives over to Christ. It is the *act of repentance* that initates the experience of the remission of sins. Without repentance there cannot be an experience of redemption, the forgiveness of sins. How can you be forgiven unless you actually repent?

The same is true when we administer Christ's Grace, as a testimony to others. They can respond to our testimony as a form of God's word to them, repent and immediately experience the remission of sins. But the work of redemption was actually accomplished at the Cross. It begins to apply to us *when we repent.* When God's word touches our heart, and we respond to it in a real way, then we experience forgiveness at that point. Our sins are remitted.

We put in motion the remission of sins when we baptize someone in the name of Jesus Christ as the apostles dead in the book of Acts. It is all about the name of Jesus and not about our particular mode of faith.

 

[Truther]

No, a minister of Christ's word brings *God's word* to bear in someone's life, and they are responding to *God* when they repent. As I told you before, "in God's name" is not using a mantra, or a magic, coded word. Rather, it means we are representing truth about Jesus, who is the source and authority of the remission of sins. He proved that at the Cross, and we are using that act, that authority, to appeal to for forgiveness of sins.

God's word comes to us in a number of forms, largely testimonials through Christians, which combined with God's word to our conscience, convicts us that we need to turn our lives over to following the way of Jesus. When we do so, we are in fact acting "in the name of Jesus," and not in the name of Mohammad or any other so-called "prophet." We are acting in the name of a divine man who alone provided for atonement of sin leading to eternal life.

You think that saying the name of Jesus is the equivalent to a magic codeword? That is what caused the lame man per Acts chapter 3 to be healed according to Peter when he was question by the authorities. He said it is by the name of Jesus and faith in his name does this man stand before you whole. Do you agree with this or do you think that Peter was also performing magic in that chapter? Didn’t the authorities command him not to speak that name anymore?

 

[Randy Kluth]

You think that saying the name of Jesus is the equivalent to a magic codeword? That is what caused the lame man per Acts chapter 3 to be healed according to Peter when he was question by the authorities. He said it is by the name of Jesus and faith in his name does this man stand before you whole. Do you agree with this or do you think that Peter was also performing magic in that chapter? Didn’t the authorities command him not to speak that name anymore?

You have it turned around. I was saying the opposite of this. The use of Jesus' Name is *not* a code word, is not a pin number. Magic is the occult or a trick--miracles are done *by the will of God.* To do something in the name of Jesus is to do something by the will of God, representing His Son. If you try to do something in the name of Jesus, but not according to God's will, you are misrepresenting Jesus' name!