Christians and Jews are both anti Acts 2:38.

[Truther]

I see many Christians attacking the Jewish beliefs for rejecting Christ but the reality is, that Christians that do not obey Acts 2:38 are as disobedient as the Jews that rejected Peter in the first century.

There is no difference to God.

We are either part of the 1st century church via Acts 2:38 obedience or we are not via disobedience to Acts 2:38.

If we disobey it, we are not of the 3000 at Pentecost, but we are as the Sanhedrin and it's "followers of God".

There is no grey area with God. Peter provided no grey area to the murderers of Jesus, nor to us in the modern world.

I am amazed at the voluntary blindness I see towards the solution to the sinners of Acts these days.

It would be a cold day in hell when most modern Christians would get baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of their sins as Peter commanded them in Acts 2:38.

Peter has been shunned by the Christian community right before the return of Christ, in these days.

Blindness in part has not just happened to Israel as per Romans 11, but to Christians also.

 

[robert derrick]

I've been baptized in the name of the Lord, so I'm good to go.

Full dunking too. In a creek. In the winter.

 

[Truman]

I was fully immersed in a baptismal tank in a Pentecostal church in 1975.
Though I think a creek is a lot cooler! Especially in the winter! Lol

 

[Truther]

Awesome testimonies, guys!

 

[Truther]

I was baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of my sins on Oct 7, 1979 on a Sunday night by Pastor Joe ....

I literally felt my sins leave me and a lifting sensation occurred as I praised God in the water.

This born again experience is a "feeler".

 

[robert derrick]

The washing away of sins is by two: faith and confession of faith.

The confession of faith includes water baptism before witnesses, which is a 1st principle of the doctrine of Christ.

No one is compelled nor forced, but neither should there be rejection nor shame in doing so.

One requests baptism, not just agrees to it, as the Ethiopian did. Clearing the conscience of all doubting is necessary in salvation and walk with God.

Some are baptized and partake of communion from a clear conscience, and with others the act clears the conscience.

In either case, it is the clear conscience with God that is the work of God in us.

 

[Brakelite]

Christians and Jews are anti baptism? That sounds like an MSM headline to pull in clicks.

 

[robert derrick]

Christians and Jews are anti baptism? That sounds like an MSM headline to pull in clicks.

Of course not. The real goal here is to start an argument about Pentecostal Oneness.

When I said I was baptised in the name of the Lord. They didn't take the bait.

They believe that unless you say these words: "In the name of Jesus Christ", you cannot be saved, because you cannot be washed from your sins without full dunking baptism with those words.

You will notice how every time the one starting the thread says those exact words, when speaking of baptism.

They don't believe in a created christ like some cults do, but they do believe the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as one and the same Person.

It is truly peculiar how Christians keep trying to come up with some special little identifier doctrine for themselves, that is apart from everyone else.

It is the original source of division. I am of Apollos, I am of Paul, becomes I am of this, that, or the other special teaching, that isn't plainly seen in Scripture, but is conjured out of it.

 

[Truther]

The washing away of sins is by two: faith and confession of faith.

The confession of faith includes water baptism before witnesses, which is a 1st principle of the doctrine of Christ.

No one is compelled nor forced, but neither should there be rejection nor shame in doing so.

One requests baptism, not just agrees to it, as the Ethiopian did. Clearing the conscience of all doubting is necessary in salvation and walk with God.

Some are baptized and partake of communion from a clear conscience, and with others the act clears the conscience.

In either case, it is the clear conscience with God that is the work of God in us.

Amen!

As we take the groom's name in baptism, we want witnesses to the ceremony if at all possible.

 

[Truther]

Of course not. The real goal here is to start an argument about Pentecostal Oneness.

When I said I was baptised in the name of the Lord. They didn't take the bait.

They believe that unless you say these words: "In the name of Jesus Christ", you cannot be saved, because you cannot be washed from your sins without full dunking baptism with those words.

You will notice how every time the one starting the thread says those exact words, when speaking of baptism.

They don't believe in a created christ like some cults do, but they do believe the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as one and the same Person.

It is truly peculiar how Christians keep trying to come up with some special little identifier doctrine for themselves, that is apart from everyone else.

It is the original source of division. I am of Apollos, I am of Paul, becomes I am of this, that, or the other special teaching, that isn't plainly seen in Scripture, but is conjured out of it.

Telling folks to obey Acts 2:38 is the will of God, but to the carnal man, divisive.

That pill is by far the hardest to swallow.

 

[Truther]

Christians and Jews are anti baptism? That sounds like an MSM headline to pull in clicks.

No, they are anti Acts 2:38 baptism to be specific.

 

[robert derrick]

Telling folks to obey Acts 2:38 is the will of God, but to the carnal man, divisive.

That pill is by far the hardest to swallow.

I apologize if I misjudged you. It's just that I used to have a good lifetime friend that is pentecostal oneness, and he lives and breathes by Acts 2:38.

So, you are not Oneness?

 

[Truther]

I apologize if I misjudged you. It's just that I used to have a good lifetime friend that is pentecostal oneness, and he lives and breathes by Acts 2:38.

So, you are not Oneness?

Yes I am oneness. Kinda. I am Acts 2:38 all the way. It is the first command by Peter to sinners to explain how to be saved.
It did not expire as many believe, but it is there to stay.
Most modernists wish it was never commanded.
Some folks teach Peter blew it per the verse(if you can believe that).
This means Luke wrote a document of the “Apostles’ follies”.

 

[Declarant]

I see many Christians attacking the Jewish beliefs for rejecting Christ but the reality is, that Christians that do not obey Acts 2:38 are as disobedient as the Jews that rejected Peter in the first century.

There is no difference to God.

We are either part of the 1st century church via Acts 2:38 obedience or we are not via disobedience to Acts 2:38.

If we disobey it, we are not of the 3000 at Pentecost, but we are as the Sanhedrin and it's "followers of God".

There is no grey area with God. Peter provided no grey area to the murderers of Jesus, nor to us in the modern world.

I am amazed at the voluntary blindness I see towards the solution to the sinners of Acts these days.

It would be a cold day in hell when most modern Christians would get baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of their sins as Peter commanded them in Acts 2:38.

Peter has been shunned by the Christian community right before the return of Christ, in these days.

Blindness in part has not just happened to Israel as per Romans 11, but to Christians also.

 

[Declarant]

Yes I am oneness. Kinda. I am Acts 2:38 all the

way. It is the first command by Peter to sinners to explain how to be saved.
It did not expire as many believe, but it is there to stay.
Most modernists wish it was never commanded.
Some folks teach Peter blew it per the verse(if you can believe that).
This means Luke wrote a document of the “Apostles’ follies”.

 

[Declarant]

I see many Christians attacking the Jewish beliefs for rejecting Christ but the reality is, that Christians that do not obey Acts 2:38 are as disobedient as the Jews that rejected Peter in the first century.

There is no difference to God.

We are either part of the 1st century church via Acts 2:38 obedience or we are not via disobedience to Acts 2:38.

If we disobey it, we are not of the 3000 at Pentecost, but we are as the Sanhedrin and it's "followers of God".

There is no grey area with God. Peter provided no grey area to the murderers of Jesus, nor to us in the modern world.

I am amazed at the voluntary blindness I see towards the solution to the sinners of Acts these days.

It would be a cold day in hell when most modern Christians would get baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of their sins as Peter commanded them in Acts 2:38.

Peter has been shunned by the Christian community right before the return of Christ, in these days.

Blindness in part has not just happened to Israel as per Romans 11, but to Christians also.

I agree with you. Didn't Peter "command " repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus for the "remission" (removal) of our sins? Rebellion is the same as witchcraft. I believe those "believers" who disobey Peter's clear command are living in clear rebellion, and need to repent for rationalizing away what Jesus talked about in Matthew 28:19. Any honest person can distinguish between a name and a title. Father Son, and Holy Ghost are NOT names but titles. If Acts 4:12 reiterates the significance that there is NO OTHER NAME but Jesus that saves, why fight it? I ask the question, what are they fighting against? Traditions of Men / Religion ? Or Rebellion? Another question. If it's not that big of a deal, then why did Peter command it in Acts 2,38? Why did the Pharisees forbid Peter later in the Acts to not preach in the name of Jesus? Can we not see that the spirit of Anti Jesus wants to stop humanity in declaring the one true saving name from being preached and spoken over humanity for life giving power!

 

[Truther]

I agree with you. Didn't Peter "command " repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus for the "remission" (removal) of our sins? Rebellion is the same as witchcraft. I believe those "believers" who disobey Peter's clear command are living in clear rebellion, and need to repent for rationalizing away what Jesus talked about in Matthew 28:19. Any honest person can distinguish between a name and a title. Father Son, and Holy Ghost are NOT names but titles. If Acts 4:12 reiterates the significance that there is NO OTHER NAME but Jesus that saves, why fight it? I ask the question, what are they fighting against? Traditions of Men / Religion ? Or Rebellion? Another question. If it's not that big of a deal, then why did Peter command it in Acts 2,38? Why did the Pharisees forbid Peter later in the Acts to not preach in the name of Jesus? Can we not see that the spirit of Anti Jesus wants to stop humanity in declaring the one true saving name from being preached and spoken over humanity for life giving power!

Great post.

I think those that oppose Acts 2:38 just do not know what the name of the son is.

That puzzles them to the point that they even disobey Jesus in Matt 28:19 and do not baptize in the name of the son at all.

It is like they are spiritually dyslexic.

 

[Addy]

Hello @Truther my little follower of Acts 2:38... Happy Sunday to you...

 

[Truther]

Hello @Truther my little follower of Acts 2:38... Happy Sunday to you...

You too my friend.

 

[robert derrick]

Yes I am oneness. Kinda. I am Acts 2:38 all the way. It is the first command by Peter to sinners to explain how to be saved.
It did not expire as many believe, but it is there to stay.
Most modernists wish it was never commanded.
Some folks teach Peter blew it per the verse(if you can believe that).
This means Luke wrote a document of the “Apostles’ follies”.

Folks who say Scripture blew it, are of course, blowing it.

But most of the time it is readers blowing interpretation of Scripture.

My knowledge of the Acts 2:38 people, is that they are Oneness, as you say, in that the Son is the Father, and the Father is the Son, and there is only One person in the Godhead. And so, you come to Acts 2:38, and therefore make it the necessary blueprint of recital at baptism in order to be saved.

1. Oneness is false doctrine:

And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one. (John 17)

If the Father is the Son, and the Son is the Father, then for us to be one even as They are One, then I would have to be you, and you would have to be me, etc...

There would be no distinction of persons and souls in the body of Christ, even as there is supposedly no distinction of Persons in the Godhead.

And so, Scriptural oneness is that of perfect unity, not of being one and the same person.

2. Acts 2:38 is one among several Scriptures teaching baptism in Christ: baptizing in the name of the Lord, in the name of the Lord Jesus, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

The last one is where you apply Oneness, and so insist the name of all three is Jesus Christ.

Which may indeed be true, since like Father, like Son, and so the Father giving His personal name to His onlybegotten and beloved Son.

3. But Baptism does not necessarily save, nor is it necessary to be saved.

Without faith, baptism, even as circumcision, is of none effect, and by faith we are saved through grace with confession of the Lord Jesus.

Baptism is a 1st principle of the doctrine of Christ, for them that believe and are saved by grace through confession of faith.

We are not saved by grace through faith and baptism.

4. Therefore, them that refuse to be outwardly baptised acknowledge their own unbelief and shame of Christ, but to judge salvation in others by whether they are baptized upon a certain formula of recited words is false accusation, being contrary to all Scripture of God about necessary faith:

But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

Likewise, vain repetition at baptism.

Scripture doesn't record anything said, when Stephen baptized the Ethiopian. If a formula of words must be exactly repeated, in order for baptism to be honored by God, then Scripture would most certainly repeat the formula itself.

'In the name of the Lord' first and foremost means with His authority, even if His name is not spoken at the time:

And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.

We are to do all things in the name of the Lord, by faith of the Lord Jesus, not by speaking His name whenever we do something, or wherever we go. That would be vain repetition indeed.

And so, those who refuse baptism, acknowledge unbelief and shame, but those not baptized to a particular formula are saved by confession of faith in Jesus, whether before or during baptism in water.