• **Notifications**: Notifications can be dismissed by clicking on the "x" on the righthand side of the notice.
  • **New Style**: You can now change style options. Click on the paintbrush at the bottom of this page.
  • **Donations**: If the Lord leads you please consider helping with monthly costs and up keep on our Forum. Click on the Donate link In the top menu bar. Thanks
  • **New Blog section**: There is now a blog section. Check it out near the Private Debates forum or click on the Blog link in the top menu bar.
  • Welcome Visitors! Join us and be blessed while fellowshipping and celebrating our Glorious Salvation In Christ Jesus.

What is Heresy?

What did Paul say in Acts 2:38?
Paul said absolutely nothing in Acts 2:38:

“Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Ac 2:38 NKJV)

As to why Peter said, "be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ," I agree with what John Gill wrote in his commentary on that verse: "in the name of Jesus Christ; not to the exclusion of the Father, and of the Spirit, in whose name also this ordinance is to be administered, Mt 28:19 but the name of Jesus Christ is particularly mentioned, because of these Jews, who had before rejected and denied him as the Messiah; but now, upon their repentance and faith, they are to be baptized in his name, by his authority, according to his command; professing their faith in him, devoting themselves to him, and calling on his name."
 
Paul said absolutely nothing in Acts 2:38:

“Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Ac 2:38 NKJV)

As to why Peter said, "be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ," I agree with what John Gill wrote in his commentary on that verse: "in the name of Jesus Christ; not to the exclusion of the Father, and of the Spirit, in whose name also this ordinance is to be administered, Mt 28:19 but the name of Jesus Christ is particularly mentioned, because of these Jews, who had before rejected and denied him as the Messiah; but now, upon their repentance and faith, they are to be baptized in his name, by his authority, according to his command; professing their faith in him, devoting themselves to him, and calling on his name."
You're right it was Peter. "in the name of Jesus Christ;

I also agree with Gill.
 
Whether you say baptise in the name of JC or F,S & HS doesn't matter.

Baptism doesn't save....it just a public confession.
Huh, it's a little more than that. What happened to it being a sign and a seal?
 
Baptism corresponds to circumcision (Col 2:11-12), neither of which saves.
I agree.....neither save.

But, explain how circumcision corresponds to baptism. Where is it in the verse?
11 In Him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of your sinful nature, with the circumcision performed by Christ and not by human hands. 12 And having been buried with Him in baptism, you were raised with Him through your faith in the power of God, who raised Him from the dead.
 
Right now, pretty much...do you have a verse?
Here, for now.
Well, baptism was ordained by Christ not only for the party baptized into the "visible" church, but also a sign and seal of the covenant of grace.

He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, Romans 4:11.

11 When you came to Christ, you were “circumcised,” but not by a physical procedure. Christ performed a spiritual circumcision—the cutting away of your sinful nature. 12 For you were buried with Christ when you were baptized. And with him you were raised to new life because you trusted the mighty power of God, who raised Christ from the dead. Col 2:11-12.
 
Here, for now.
Well, baptism was ordained by Christ not only for the party baptized into the "visible" church, but also a sign and seal of the covenant of grace.

He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, Romans 4:11.

11 When you came to Christ, you were “circumcised,” but not by a physical procedure. Christ performed a spiritual circumcision—the cutting away of your sinful nature. 12 For you were buried with Christ when you were baptized. And with him you were raised to new life because you trusted the mighty power of God, who raised Christ from the dead. Col 2:11-12.
Water baptism is a way to show you you have been baptised and buried with Christ and risen with Christ.... It is a sign to others that you have been saved by Christ Jesus and sealed by the Holy Spirit.

Water baptism doesn't seal anyone nor does it save anyone.
 
Water baptism is a way to show you you have been baptised and buried with Christ and risen with Christ.... It is a sign to others that you have been saved by Christ Jesus and sealed by the Holy Spirit.

Water baptism doesn't seal anyone nor does it save anyone.
Thats all it is? Just to show "others" that we have been baptized and burried? A sign? Really?
 
Do you know and understand Dispensationalism has openly and deliberately 1) elevated ecclesiology and eschatology above Christology and soteriology, 2) asserted positions contrary to the historically orthodox positions long held throughout Christendom, and 3) those positions are irreconcilable with the historical, orthodox positions of the Church?

Do you understand this?

If not, then go to my profile page, click on the "Find" button and go to "Find All Threads by Josheb" and look up the six threads I started on the problems within Dispensational Premillennialism (DP). If you are already aware of the problems I just listed in DPism, then 1) you have an example of secondary doctrines creating and teaching heresy (at least as it's being discussed in this thread) and 2) can, therefore, reconsider Post 70's position and maybe we can discuss that viewpoint in greater detail.
I was once into that theology, but now am a Reformed Baptist, but do not see Dispy as heresy, but as wrongly understandingcertain issues
 
Yes, outward sign testifying to an already inward work
And like circumcision, placing you in the covenant community, though not necessarily of the covenant promises which are
only by faith in the promise (Ge 15:5, Seed, Jesus Christ, Gal 3:16).
 
I was once into that theology, but now am a Reformed Baptist,...
Most of us Reformed-minded members are former Dispies.
but do not see Dispy as heresy, but as wrongly understandingcertain issues
Well, stick around and I will gladly persuade you to that position. I wrote six ops on the problems inherent in Dispensational Premillennialism but this one HERE is the most damning as far as heresy goes. Any theology that teaches a different Christology, a different soteriology, a different ecclesiology that is irreconcilable with both whole scripture and 2,000 years of orthodox, historical Christian thought, doctrine, and practice is heretical. Any questions or comments you have can be posted in that thread and I'll gladly reply.

And, JF, thank you for your well-mannered discourse in all the recent threads where we've traded posts.
 
Back
Top