Christians and Jews are both anti Acts 2:38.

[robert derrick]

God was with God in the beginning?

Or, the spoken word of God was with God in the beginning?

Mary was Jesus' mother:

And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine.

Scripture never calls her God's mother.

 

[Truther]

Jesus is not the 'spoken' Word. He is the Word: God. A Person of the Godhead.

And so both, God the Word was with God, as well as God the Spirit.

Three Persons in the Godhead. All One in perfect unity.

When the Word became flesh born of a woman, then Scripture refers to God the Father and the Son of God.

That new relationship between them will continue forever as God and the Lamb sitting inn the same throne. (Rev 22:1)

Wait, there are two words of God? Jesus is the word of God and the spoken word which created everything per Gen 1 is the word of God?

Maybe God spoke through Jesus in Gen 1?

 

[Truther]

Mary was Jesus' mother:

And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine.

Scripture never calls her God's mother.

If the baby was God, then Mary was God’s mother correct?

 

[robert derrick]

If the baby was God, then Mary was God’s mother correct?

If carnal reasoning were of God, then God would have put it in Scripture. Correct?

I stick to Scripture, and where no Scripture is, then carnal mindedness can take over and believe anything it wants, no matter how false.

But it sure sounds logical to the carnal mind.

Mary was the mother of Jesus according to the Scriptures. No Scripture ever speaks of a 'Mother of God'.

That is mystical paganism 101: a reincarnated Demeter given the name of 'Mary'.

 

[robert derrick]

Wait, there are two words of God? Jesus is the word of God and the spoken word which created everything per Gen 1 is the word of God?

Maybe God spoke through Jesus in Gen 1?

He is the Word of God, and we live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God: the mouth of Jesus Christ.

He has spoken many words, including those which created all things.

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Scripture doesn't say God is His words.

 

[amadeus]

Scripture doesn't say God is His words.

Then what is this saying?

"...and the Word was God." John 1:1

What is the Word of God if not the words which God speaks?

 

[robert derrick]

Then what is this saying?

"...and the Word was God." John 1:1

What is the Word of God if not the words which God speaks?

Are you your words?

When you speak, are you entering into the ears of them that hear?

I suppose someone could teach that God is His words, and that by His Spirit He enters into the ears of them that hear, even as Jesus is the Bread of Life, and that hearing and believing His words is to eat His flesh, even as He said we must do to have His life in us.

It's just that Scripture never says God is His words.

That is a Buddhist concept.

 

[Truther]

If carnal reasoning were of God, then God would have put it in Scripture. Correct?

I stick to Scripture, and where no Scripture is, then carnal mindedness can take over and believe anything it wants, no matter how false.

But it sure sounds logical to the carnal mind.

Mary was the mother of Jesus according to the Scriptures. No Scripture ever speaks of a 'Mother of God'.

That is mystical paganism 101: a reincarnated Demeter given the name of 'Mary'.

God wants us to put 2 and 2 together to test our beliefs.

You are espousing Catholicism and do not want to think outside their box.

Tradition trumps truth.

 

[Truther]

He is the Word of God, and we live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God: the mouth of Jesus Christ.

He has spoken many words, including those which created all things.

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Scripture doesn't say God is His words.

God's word is Him.

Your word is you.

My word is me.

No?

 

[amadeus]

Are you your words?

I have never or written or had anyone else write that I was. So why would you ask? I am not God although, I certainly and striving to be what He wants me to be. Through His power being is like Him is a possibility, is it not?

"Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is." I John 3:2

When you speak, are you entering into the ears of them that hear?

Why are you talking about my carnal words, as if they were the same as God's Word?

"So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it." Isaiah 55:11

When my words are quickened by the Spirit, who hears them but he who has "ears to hear" given to him by God? When, however I speak from my carnal mind and my words are not the Word of God, how much will they accomplish for certain?

"If wishes were horses, beggars would ride."

I can wish or hope that things will done a certain way, but me speaking it with own carnal words will not make them do what God's Word will certainly do. Right?

I suppose someone could teach that God is His words, and that by His Spirit He enters into the ears of them that hear, even as Jesus is the Bread of Life, and that hearing and believing His words is to eat His flesh, even as He said we must do to have His life in us.

Yes, someone certainly could teach that.

It's just that Scripture never says God is His words.

I guess you do not hear what I hear or see what I see!

That is a Buddhist concept.

So you say... I know nothing of Buddha.

 

[Declarant]

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.

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.

So if there is a disagreement about how one is to be baptized, it's divisive? , let's agree to disagree. Shall we? Is it possible that as the scripture declares that one of the purposes of receiving the Holy Spiritt is that it "leads us into all truth ? Holy Ghost I simply believe that the very direct command from Peter in Acts 2:38 is clear and don't agree that we should be baptized in any other way.

 

[Truther]

So if there is a disagreement about how one is to be baptized, it's divisive? , let's agree to disagree. Shall we? Is it possible that as the scripture declares that one of the purposes of receiving the Holy Spiritt is that it "leads us into all truth ? Holy Ghost I simply believe that the very direct command from Peter in Acts 2:38 is clear and don't agree that we should be baptized in any other way.

Excellent post. The Spirit of truth led them to Acts 2:38 the same day. I never thought of it quite like that!

 

[Declarant]

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.

Let me be clear, I am not declaring a formula to be saved. I am simply declaring what Peter said. He said Repent and be baptized, every one of you (how?) In the name of Jesus(why?) For the remission of sins(removal) and your sins and so you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Promise) JESUS cried over Jerusalem in John 7:37-39. Those who believe on me (as the scripture has said, out of their bellies shall flow rivers of living water. He was prophetic in speaking of the Holy Spirit to be given. Believing on Jesus as the scripture has declared isn't just a key to receiving the Holy Spirit but Gods expectation in releasing His Spirit unto man. In Mark Jesus says that those that are "baptized shall be saved" sounds like Jesus connected baptism to either being saved or being dammed. Correct? I would tread lightly before judging believers who take the name of Jesus in their baptism as to assume what they believe and discredit the name of Jesus in one's baptism. I am declaring simply what Peter said, not a formula or anything else. This topic is or shouldn't be divisive. It should be honest. Father is NOT a name, Son is NOT a name and HOLY GHOST IS NOT A NAME.. Peter did command it. The real question is spiritual in nature not intellectual. Why am I refusing to obey that particular command by Peter? Does his command disturb one theology? Does it ho against someone's current church creed? Embrace the name of Jesus in Word (Speaking by His authority Yes) or in deed (Doing) like the Act of Baptism) Do All in that wonderful Saving name. ( And Yes the declaration of His authority by his name even causes the demons to tremble., His name more than ever, should be declared . I pray that we as a body ask God to answer those questions in our hearts. I am not Pentecostal. Please don't assume or lump me into some bucket or box. I am a follower of Christ and make no assumptions. I declare under penalty of Perjury that I believe that Peter and the 11 stood up on that great and preached that message to those Jews who betrayed Jesus. It's spiritually significant such as multiple points that you and others on this thread are making. I respect and consider the thoughts and beliefs of others whether I fully agree with them or not. Blessings to all

 

[robert derrick]

So if there is a disagreement about how one is to be baptized, it's divisive? , let's agree to disagree. Shall we? Is it possible that as the scripture declares that one of the purposes of receiving the Holy Spiritt is that it "leads us into all truth ? Holy Ghost I simply believe that the very direct command from Peter in Acts 2:38 is clear and don't agree that we should be baptized in any other way.

Then do as you believe, and you do well.

And others do as they believe, and they do well.

Since, we're not judging different baptisms.

And we aren't. The problem is when we do begin to judge others by their baptism with faith, based only on 'words spoken' during the event.

 

[robert derrick]

Let me be clear, I am not declaring a formula to be saved. I am simply declaring what Peter said. He said Repent and be baptized, every one of you (how?) In the name of Jesus(why?) For the remission of sins(removal) and your sins and so you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Promise) JESUS cried over Jerusalem in John 7:37-39. Those who believe on me (as the scripture has said, out of their bellies shall flow rivers of living water. He was prophetic in speaking of the Holy Spirit to be given. Believing on Jesus as the scripture has declared isn't just a key to receiving the Holy Spirit but Gods expectation in releasing His Spirit unto man. In Mark Jesus says that those that are "baptized shall be saved" sounds like Jesus connected baptism to either being saved or being dammed. Correct? I would tread lightly before judging believers who take the name of Jesus in their baptism as to assume what they believe and discredit the name of Jesus in one's baptism. I am declaring simply what Peter said, not a formula or anything else. This topic is or shouldn't be divisive. It should be honest. Father is NOT a name, Son is NOT a name and HOLY GHOST IS NOT A NAME.. Peter did command it. The real question is spiritual in nature not intellectual. Why am I refusing to obey that particular command by Peter? Does his command disturb one theology? Does it ho against someone's current church creed? Embrace the name of Jesus in Word (Speaking by His authority Yes) or in deed (Doing) like the Act of Baptism) Do All in that wonderful Saving name. ( And Yes the declaration of His authority by his name even causes the demons to tremble., His name more than ever, should be declared . I pray that we as a body ask God to answer those questions in our hearts. I am not Pentecostal. Please don't assume or lump me into some bucket or box. I am a follower of Christ and make no assumptions. I declare under penalty of Perjury that I believe that Peter and the 11 stood up on that great and preached that message to those Jews who betrayed Jesus. It's spiritually significant such as multiple points that you and others on this thread are making. I respect and consider the thoughts and beliefs of others whether I fully agree with them or not. Blessings to all

There is no dispute here about the fact of physical baptism being a commandment of the Lord, and is one of the first principles of the doctrine of Christ. (Heb 6:1)

And there would be no disputes at all, except some believe the 'procedure' of baptism must be done in a physically correct manner, upon which salvation depends.

No such carnal commandments exist anymore in the law of Christ, as they did in the law of Moses.

The only physical act as part of salvation is confession of Jesus with the mouth.

And so, if someone is baptized and says Jesus is Lord before or after the dunking, then that would be a great baptism.

And if no one said anything, as we see in Acts 8, then that is perfectly fine to.

Being in the military I knew of baptisms in danger zones. It was sometimes possible to be wounded or killed, and yet the new believer insisted, and others aided, and if we had been killed in the process before saying anything at all, or even completing the act, then they would have been in the presence of the Lord.

Carnal ordinances of physical display for purposes of salvation and worship of God are done away. There are none in Christ Jesus, but faith in the heart and the working of faith in the life.

 

[robert derrick]

God wants us to put 2 and 2 together to test our beliefs.

You are espousing Catholicism and do not want to think outside their box.

Tradition trumps truth.

I thought you were the Catholic here trying to deify Mary as 'Mother of God'.

And when there is no 2 and 2 from Scripture, then the test is to reject false beliefs.

 

[robert derrick]

God's word is Him.

Your word is you.

My word is me.

No?

God's word is Him.

Quote that from Scripture, and I'll believe it.

The Word was God is written. Not God's Word is Him. Not God is His Word.

And no, I am not my word. My word is mine. And if I keep my word, I do well.

 

[Abaxvahl]

I thought you were the Catholic here trying to deify Mary as 'Mother of God'.

And when there is no 2 and 2 from Scripture, then the test is to reject false beliefs.

It does not make her what God is to say that she is the Mother of the Second Person of the Trinity.

 

[Truther]

I thought you were the Catholic here trying to deify Mary as 'Mother of God'.

And when there is no 2 and 2 from Scripture, then the test is to reject false beliefs.

OK, I think we had a problem with communication. No I am Pentecostal.

 

[Truther]

God's word is Him.

Quote that from Scripture, and I'll believe it.

The Word was God is written. Not God's Word is Him. Not God is His Word.

And no, I am not my word. My word is mine. And if I keep my word, I do well.

The Word was God… God’s word is him. Your word is you. My word is me. Trumps word is Trump. Since when does a persons word not emanate from them or become part of them?
Your word can start wars or get you put in jail or make you a success. Jesus said by your words you’ll be justified and by your words you’ll be condemned.

Don’t even attempt to tell God that your word is not you at the judgment day. He won’t buy that. It is enough to cause a person to be lost for eternity.

This means your word is definitely you and God’s word is definitely him.