IF you deconverted in midlife, can you help?

[Dragonfly]

Actually, it was Yeshua, so, according to your rationale, if you weren't baptized in that name, you're pretty much screwed.

True, but in the modern english language it's Jesus. The Aramaic / Hebrew alphabet is not the same, nor do the equivalent letters have the same pronunciation.

Actually, the Hebrew pronunciation is Yeshua. It's not Jesus. I read Hebrew. I don't claim to understand the meanings of every Hebrew word written, but pronunciation I do know. So on the one hand, you're saying that everyone who is not baptized in only the name of Jesus Christ is saved, yet that's not the name that the those in the Christian "new" testament were using (assuming any of this took place, of course). There is no reason to use modern English. Basically, you weren't baptized in the name that you were commanded to be baptized in or the name that those in NT times were baptized in. So, according to you, you are not going to heaven. You can't have it both ways. That is intellectual dishonesty.

Interestingly, in the Christian "new testament," there were several people who were saved without baptism.

Sure, there was the thief, but that was the first and only opportunity he had. God is just, he's not going to condemn someone who was willing, but never had the opportunity to hear the gospel. Hearing the gospel and then rejecting it, is a completely different thing all together, they shall be destroyed -- without remedy.

I reviewed Luke 23:39-43, and there's nothing there to indicate that was the first and only opportunity the thief had. Besides the thief, there are several others, and these are just the ones mentioned:

• penitent woman (Luke 7:37-50)
  
• paralytic man (Matthew 9:2)
  
• publican (Luke 18-13-14)
  

All of these are said to have experienced forgiveness of sins without baptism. There is also no record of the apostles being baptized, yet they were said to have been cleansed of their sins (John 15:3), and it was the Word of God, not baptism, that cleansed them. 

Regarding, "God is just, he's not going to condemn someone who was willing, but never had the opportunity to hear the gospel." Where in the Bible is that written? 

Romans 1:20 reads "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse." 

I'm curious. What denomination were you raised in?

I'm not part of any denomination.

I asked what denomination you were raised in. 

Do you belong to one or ascribe to one's teachings now, and if so, which one? I'm not familiar with Oneness that someone else mentioned. Pentecostal? I find it quite rare to encounter a Christian who thinks that baptism is required for entry into heaven. There are so many other verses that point to belief/faith, and you mention nothing of that. Essentially, you're making salvation based on works rather than faith.

Baptism is required for the remission of sin, and a person that dies in thier sin can't get into heaven...

Again, do you belong to or ascribe to a particular denomination's teachings now, and if so, which one? Oneness? Pentecostal? Something else? In my experience, strongly held belief that is based on one particular narrow interpretation of a few passages of the Bible usually comes from somewhere other than simply reading the Bible. So I'm asking you to be honest and share where you were first taught that baptism was required for entry into heaven. If answering this is something you're uncomfortable with doing, you might want to ask yourself why because it indicates intellectual dishonesty.

You didn't address the fact that there are many other verses that point to belief/faith and yet you make no mention of that or the fact that you are essentially making salvation based on works rather than faith. 

Something else I'm curious about: If you believe that those who have not repented and are not baptized are not going to heaven (and instead going to hell, I assume), do you feel any responsibility for having a good testimony and being a good witness for Jesus Christ? I'm wondering why you're on these boards--is it to win souls for Jesus or to win arguments? There are others who profess Christianity here, but they are not insulting, ridiculing, and contentious. Your behavior has confirmed that many (maybe I should say most) professed Christians act no better than nonbelievers and, in many cases, act worse. Your conduct here has moved me more solidly into non-belief. I have lost much of the fear and confusion mentioned in my original post due to your behavior and the behavior of others like you. Do you think you will have to answer to God for your conduct when you see him face-to-face?

And finally an important question I have for you, Huggy, is this: If you were wrong about your beliefs, would you want to know?

[Abaddon_ire]

Well, since I was baptised in jesus christ 50 years ago, and I can repent on my death bed and be saved it looks like I have all the bases covered.

What reason do I have to act morally at all?

What? were you baptized as a baby?

Yup and confirmed at 12. Got a problem with that?

[Huggy Bear]

What? were you baptized as a baby?

Yup and confirmed at 12. Got a problem with that?

No problem at all, just wondering how a baby knows what repentance is, or even what it has to repent for...

---

So basically what you're saying is that you have tunnel vision and are unwilling to look at all the other scriptures that put that one verse in context...

You can't find anywhere in the Bible where ANY of the disciples baptized using the trinitarian formula, they all baptized in the name of Jesus Christ... that should make it obvious how one should baptize. I mean, if in doubt, you'd figure you'd follow the example of the original apostles...

But no, imma just focus on this one particular verse...

Whereas you will ignore it, lol.

Not my problem the Scriptures aren't crystal clear on this and other matters.

Personally, if I were a Christian, I'd say it doesn't really matter either way. Baptism in the name of Jesus or the F/S/H, they're both supported by the Bible.

*emphasis mine*

This is the reason why there are hundreds of different denominations, everyone has their own interpretation of how to do things, instead of following the example set in the scripture...

[purplepurpose]

Huggy74, for how long have you been God's faithful follower? Do you get sometimes tired from believing in hell?

[GrandizerII]

Yup and confirmed at 12. Got a problem with that?

No problem at all, just wondering how a baby knows what repentance is, or even what it has to repent for...

---

Whereas you will ignore it, lol.

Not my problem the Scriptures aren't crystal clear on this and other matters.

Personally, if I were a Christian, I'd say it doesn't really matter either way. Baptism in the name of Jesus or the F/S/H, they're both supported by the Bible.

*emphasis mine*

This is the reason why there are hundreds of different denominations, everyone has their own interpretation of how to do things, instead of following the example set in the scripture...

Yeah, like the example set in Matthew 28:19. Baptize them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ...

[Angrboda]

Just a minor point, but if I were commanded to do something in the name of the acting attorney general, I would be safe in either doing so with reference to either "Matthew Whitaker" or "The Acting Attorney General". "In the name of" is an idiomatic phrase meaning to invoke the authority of the person or office, so invoking either is the same thing. It doesn't literally mean to say the name of the person. It's figurative. So this argument that the father, son, and the holy ghost are titles and not names simply doesn't wash. Saying the name of Jesus alone doesn't do anything.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yabut, when it comes to magic spells, you have to say the words just right while dancing widdershins or it won't work.  Errybody knows that. 

[GrandizerII]

Plus, under the Oneness/modalism doctrine, the name of Jesus is basically the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit. It' the same person after all. So it really shouldn't make much difference to Huggy. And yet somehow this is a problem.

[Astreja]

The main problem, as I see it, is that Huggy's wittering has nothing to do with the OP.

[Dragonfly]

The main problem, as I see it, is that Huggy's wittering has nothing to do with the OP.

Yes, I should have reviewed the rules earlier. How do you find who the mods are?