Questions Oneness Pentecostals can't answer about baptism

Please answer in the comments, the questions you wish to respond to. I would also LOVE a video response. I'm interested in your explanations. God bless!

[phillipyoung]

I’m a Pentecostal the epistles are sent to churches churches already established and rooted in the truth they were already baptized in Jesus name and filled with the Holyghost!

[robertnieten]

Question 5) Paul mentions some believers bragging that they were baptized by Paul or Apollos not denying that they were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

[RGD]

dgreenja and Andrew Knight, You both answered very well, Glory to God...

What now Trinity Apologetics? What makes you maimed?

If I were you, I should get out from this Trinity doctrine, It is obviously
the doctrine of the devil, before it's too late...


TRINITY CONTRADICTS the entire bible that TEACHES that God
is only One without any concept, or implication, or insinuation
of a Trinity,

God created all things ALONE and by HIMSELF ALONE!

The doctrine of Trinity cannot be found in the bible!

There is no word nor concept of Trinity in the bible!

You cannot find EVEN one verse in the bible that teaches Trinity!

What they did was mixed several verses from different topics,
then interpolate it to arrive at Trinity,

The following cannot be found in the bible:

You cannot find Trinity in the bible,
You cannot find Triune or Unified God in the bible,
You cannot find God in 3 persons in the bible,
You cannot find God the Son in the bible,
You cannot find eternal Son in the bible,
You cannot find God the Holy Spirit in the bible,
You cannot find co equal, co eternal and co existent
in the bible,

The bible says that there is only One God, Only the Father,
Therefore it eliminates 'God the Son' and 'God the Holy Spirit'

Malachi 2:10 ( NIV )
Do we not all have '''ONE FATHER'''? Did not '''ONE GOD''' create us?
Why do we profane the covenant of our ancestors by being unfaithful
to one another?

John 17:3 ( NLT )
And this is the way to have eternal life--to know you, the '''ONLY TRUE GOD''',
and Jesus Christ, the one you sent to earth.

Ephesians 4:6 (NIV )
GOD AND FATHER OF ALL''', who is over all and through all and in all.''

1 Corinthians 8:6 ( NIV )
''yet for us there is but '''ONE GOD, THE FATHER''' from whom all things came
and for whom we live;...''

ISAIAH 44:24 destroy your hunch that 3 persons were involved in creation!

ISAIAH 44:24 (KJV )

Thus saith the Lord, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb,
''''I AM'''' the Lord that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens ''''ALONE'''';
that spreadeth abroad the earth by ''''MYSELF'''';

[hiswordremainethforever]

At work but I will get back to answering and with scriptures. 👊

[jimmyarmijo]

Oh yes he did! Paul used the name of Jesus in Romans chapter 6.
Like some have already stated, in Acts all converts were baptised in Jesus name. The epistles declare this. Simon Peter sanctioned Paul's letters to be scripture. He said the wisdom and grace that was given to him. Who gave it to Paul? God did. And Peter gave warning; Paul's letters are sometimes hard to be understood that they of unstable souls wrest the scriptures unto their own destruction. Just because someone carries a bible, that doesn't mean they understand the bible.

[triunefollower]

This video brought out all of the modalist heretics 😂😂

[dgreenja]

I will skip to question 3. Simon the sorcerer, after being baptized was still one at heart. Peter told him to repent. Baptism in the name of Jesus beings remission of sins, but please note that only sins are only remitted when repented of. That's why Peter first mentioned repentance in Acts 2:38. With this too, the fact that a man gets baptized without repenting, doesn't negate the requirement of being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.
With question 4, repentance and baptism, though connected, doesn't place the remission of sins at the time of repentance. Now think about this. Simon the sorcerer obviously never repented in order for it to be connected to baptism, hence baptism became a useless exercise for him.
Saul the persecutor of the church, repented of his sins, for he asked the Lord what He would have him to do. Furthermore, the Lord told Ananias Behold he prayeth. These two factors prove that he repented. Now Ananias on meeting Saul, told him, Why tarriest thou? Arise and be baptized, and WASH AWAY YOUR SINS, calling on the name of the Lord. He told him to do one thing in order to bring the remission of sins to pass. Both were futuristic. If at the time of his repentance he never repented, Ananias would not have told the part which said AND WASH AWAY YOUR SINS. Clearly his sins were not washed away or forgiven until he was baptized.

[PrimeTimevideolink]

I find it amusing that this video is entitled as such but then Oneness Pentecostals are able to answer it in the comments ♥

[patriciacain]

Because the Epistles are letters written to individuals or churches on how they should live and conduct themselves after getting saved in the book of Acts.Acts is the only book in the Bible with verbatim preaching telling the lost what they must do to be saved.Rightly dividing the Word.

[TheSoulWinnersGuide]

13) the biblical formula is "Jesus" with titles such as Lord and Christ used in conjunction at times.

[TheSoulWinnersGuide]

4) Acts 2: 38, an Analysis

Some have contended that since there is a grammatical change in Acts 2: 38 from second person, plural in the case of "repent" to third person, singular in the case of "baptized, " Peter meant to convey to the reader that baptism unlike repentance is not to be viewed as essential to salvation.

    The question is, what significant difference is there in the change in the grammar pertaining to the matter of the acquisition of salvation? The singular in number in the case of "baptized" would simply be the distributive singular, meaning "let each one of you be baptized." If anything, the distributive singular would emphasize individual responsibility. Therefore, the wording in Acts 2: 38, "each of you" (hekastos humon). However, the individual responsibility would equally apply to "repent, " in view of the coordinating conjunction, "and" or kai. The passive voice does not diminish the importance of baptism because baptism is something done to one (the subject is acted upon). Hence, the literal translation is, "let be baptized" (Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, by Nestle, Cp. Acts 8: 38). I had part in a religious debate on Acts 2: 38 years ago in which the disputant who held that Acts 2: 38 does not include baptism as essential to salvation said, "Peter sought to de-emphasize any equally shared importance of baptism to repentance by not even addressing the audience in the case of baptism (third person)!" It must be remembered, though, that regardless of why the grammar shifts from the second person to the third person, Peter shows he continues to address the audience in regards to baptism by saying, "each of you" or "every one of you" (hekastos humon). What actually could be the significance of the third person, those about whom the writer is speaking instead of those being addressed? Some have suggested that Peter is saying, "Repent and let each allow himself to be baptized (those who have repented) every one of you…." I do not know of an English translation that so renders the grammar because it would be very awkward to the average reader. It is possible that there was an idiom involved in this grammar concerning which we are simply not aware. (It does appear that the distributive singular "be baptized" joined with "every one of you, " hekastos humon does idiomatically form great emphasis as to individual duty). Regardless of the reason for the change in Acts 2: 38 from the second to the third person in the instance of "baptized, " the change does not affect the importance of baptism coupled with repentance (see addendum).

    It is apparent, I might inject, that the required baptism of Acts 2: 38 is the baptism of the Great Commission, the baptism Jesus said is necessary to make disciples and that precedes salvation (Matt. 28: 19, Mk. 16: 16). This baptism is a burial in water (Col. 2: 12, Rom. 6). Water baptism places one into Jesus where salvation is found and is the official putting off the old man and involves the putting on of the new man (Gal. 3: 26, 27, Rom. 6). Water baptism is involved in the "form of doctrine" about which Paul wrote to the Romans: "But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness" (Rom. 6: 17, 18, see the context beginning in verse one in regards to baptism).
-BibleTruths.net, Trinitarian source

[josetrevino]

Psalm 67
1 God be merciful unto us, and bless us; and cause his face to shine upon us; Selah.
2 That thy way may be known upon earth, thy saving health among all nations.
3 Let the people praise thee, O God; let all the people praise thee.
4 O let the nations be glad and sing for joy; for thou shalt judge the people righteously, and govern the nations upon earth. Selah.
5 Let the people praise thee, O God; let all the people praise thee.
6 Then shall the earth yield her increase; and God, even our own God, shall bless us.
7 God shall bless us; and all the ends of the earth shall fear him.

[lovethetruth]

I wish you were face to face because I have questions to your questions that are actually answers to these questions.

[davidgreen]

Response 25

If the five letter word Jesus, bears no importance, then what makes the nine letter word, character, the five letter word, glory, and the other words in your question, important. In other words, the simple word Jesus, is also a powerful name in which the gloru, character, etc, dwells. So which is more important? None of them are more important, but to have the contents, character, glory, status, authority, power, one must have the container, the name Jesus. Water in a cup, is what prevents dehydration, but because the content cannot exist without a container, then the container of the content, becomes equally important. Even if one bends toward a standing pipe and drink, the water still must exist in some container or containers, the pipe, river, reservoir, etc.

To be continued in another thread

[andrewknight]

These questions can be hard for Apostolics to answer, but as an Apostolic Pentecostal I intend to answer every one of them right here on these posts.

[anthonybardsley]

One lord, one faith, one baptism (spiritual). Without hands, the type has finished by the time we get to ephesians.

[TheSoulWinnersGuide]

12) On the question of Abraham and n.t. faith:

Acts 2: 38, an Analysis

Wallace's work Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics contains the typical rejection of "for" meaning toward forgiveness (pg. 369-371). He contends that if we understand "for" (eis) in order to, then we must conclude that salvation is by works, since baptism is a work. Wallace, therefore, rejects the Greek grammar. However, the condemned concept of salvation by works involves works whereby man can boast (Eph. 2: 8-9). Faith or belief itself is said to be a work, a work that God has required (Jn. 6: 29). Baptism is also a work required by God and offers no occasion for boasting. The respected A. T. Robertson reasons that eis in Acts 2: 38 cannot mean with a view to. He sites three cases involving eis in which he believes eis is used in the sense of "because of." However, each of these cases can also support the usual "with a view to" (anticipatory) use of eis. Lutheran scholar and linguist R. C. H. Lenski summed up the matter of eis in Acts 2: 38 as follows:

    "It amounts to nothing more than a formal grammatical difference whether eis is again regarded as denoting sphere (equal to en, as Robertson argues, dm) or, as commonly supposed, as indicating aim and purpose, R. 592, or better still as denoting effect. Sphere would mean that baptism is inside the same circle as remission; he who steps into this circle has both. Aim and purpose would mean that baptism intends to give remission; in him, then, who receives baptism aright this intention, aim, and purpose would be attained. The same is true regarding the idea of effect in eis. This preposition connects remission so closely with baptism that nobody has as yet been able to separate the two…." (Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles, pg. 107, 108).

[dgreenja]

John never mentioned baptism in the name of Jesus, as it is a NT requirement. The NT began when Jesus died, was buried and rose again. The requirement of salvation in the NT was preached by Peter. Peter preached the gospel of salvation and it included baptism.
Baptism is accepted to be a requirement. Why not then accept it as an absolute requirement. Is it a requirement which was never an optional one?

The epistles were written to those who were already identified with the burial of Jesus, by baptism, hence there was no need for the writers to mention the name with the baptism in the epistles.

For the remission of sins, denotes purpose or means.

[PastorMills]

The book of John was written primarily for believers to continue believing. So yes it wouldn’t contain how people are baptised but does contain teaching being born of water and spirit. If not what do you suggest this meant?

[andrewknight]

Question 22The setting here is when Peter is brought to the Pharisees after the lame man is healed, and the question is not at all salvation here, it's what authority do you have, or what gives you the authority to do this, what name was this done in? Well Acts 3 Peter tells the lame man 'in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth arise and walk', but if you keep reading in Acts 4:12 Peter says there is no other name under heaven given among men whereby we 'must be saved'.