Been studying the subject of baptism being essential unto salvation for close to 40 years and even more persuaded every day that it is part and parcel of the saving grace of our Lord Jesus Christ's Redemption - Thus ministering the great commission of Jesus Christ - and agreeing fully with you Brother Aaron - Keep up the good fight of Faith and correctly and rightly divided Word of Truth ✅
@@driesvzyl143 appreciate this comment. I concur the more one studies with an open heart and mind they will see it is how God chose men to be saved along with belief, confession, and repentance. All are a part of God’s plan to show His grace to man!
Haven't been on this CZcams account in forever. Things sure have changed since the guitar playing videos. Good for you, man. Hope things keep going great for you.
@@AaronGallagherTV Good for you! I remember the early tutorials, a little rough with the vocals, then I checked in on you and you had amazing vocals! With the help of youtube, I was able to play in a classic rock band in my late 50s. While searching christian content, I just recently rediscovered your channel. I went to subscribed and saw that I was already subbed lol. anyway, thought Id throw that out there. God Bless Aaron
@@bcrumpty that’s awesome! Thank you for that! That’s great about your band too! It’s been an interesting last 15 years but the Lord has been good to me!
Hey Aaron, can you do a lesson on false doctrines that arose from the Protestant rejection of Catholicism’s false doctrines? For example, Protestants reject [scriptural] baptism, due to Catholicism’s corrupted teaching on the matter. Or Protestant teach faith alone because Catholicism taught unscriptural works.
I’m so confused… when God intervened in my life- I repented , then later on , about less than a month , I was baptized with the Holy Spirit , and I know all this because I documented the events- then , years later did water baptism to outwardly confess, to all worlds ours and spiritual to whom I belonged.
So Arron tell me this .. With the heart man Believeth Unto - to - righteousness.. And with the Mouth Baptism is unto - to- Salavtion. Your golden calf is baptism.. I have never heard anyone walk right over the truth and still miss it this bad.. Bless your heart ... It is so simple you really can't see it.. - Your Spirit master would be proud of this word salad.. - how can a man Baptize with his mouth.. if you have to change the Bible this much just to fit your religion ...then maybe you need to just change your religion Instead .
My! You certainly aren’t reading your theology into these verses. (Actually that’s sarcasm. This is craziness. He starts with his own premises, then forces that perspective onto verses that have nothing whatsoever to do with what he’s claiming. This will only make sense to the CoC who have been trained to read the NT that way.)
Hello Todd! I appreciate you watching. You're free to disagree. I previously did not believe one must be baptized to be saved, but after studying this account, the facts changed my mind. Paul was told by an inspired man he had not called on the name of the Lord after Paul had already called Jesus Lord audibly, prayed for 3 days while fasting, repented, changed his life, had a miraculous vision and been miraculously healed. After doing all of those things, Ananias, an inspired man (Mark 16:20), tells Paul he still needs to arise and be baptized and wash away his sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
@@AaronGallagherTV Wow! You’re as nice in person as you seem on your videos 😁 For the record though, interpreting Romans 10 through the lens of Acts 2 and Acts 22 doesn’t make a lot of sense. Nowhere is baptism even mentioned in that Romans passage. I’m actually less antagonistic to the CoC position than most, but that doesn’t make a lot of sense biblically. You are reading your theology into this passage rather than getting your theology from the passage. I hope that makes sense to you. I think a better view would be to shape your theology to the NT rather than the other way around. But I must admit that I really enjoy listening to you. You seem to be a very nice man who has really thought about these issues. But if I may suggest … lol … maybe Acts 2:38 and Acts 22:16 are not the key verses for understanding justification. I know you hate the idea, but it give it a thought. (I know you won’t, but I gotta try 🤪). Thanks so much for your kind response. I know you must be extremely busy.
@@toddstevens9667 Hello Todd! I appreciate your thoughts! Would love to talk more with you on this if you ever want to. I try to keeup up w comments but miss some sometimes. Glad I caught yours! I try to think chronologically so I always approach the phrase or an idea to the best I can that way. Acts 2:21/38, then Acts 9/22 would occur around the same time as Romans 10:14. I'd be open to hearing your thought on justification, as I have always thought that justification and salvation are linked chronologically based on Acts 13:38-39. To me, when you put together the many passages that refer to salvation and justification, you get the essentiality of believe, repentance, confession, and baptism. Also living faithfully. My email is gallagher@gbntv.org if you I miss a comment on here! Have a great day and thanks for watching even when you disagree! I am honored you take the time to watch.
@@AaronGallagherTV I’m a bit embarrassed by my original comment, not because I disagree with it, but because it sounds so ill-tempered. Unfortunately, I’ve been in the midst of passing a kidney stone for the last five days and it has made me a bit ill-tempered. But a little about me to give you context about my comments, in my earliest years I was raised CoC. Then my parents decided to become orthodox Presbyterian. When they could stomach their crazy baptism ideas no longer, we became Baptist. But I haven’t attended a Baptist church for decades. I have attended a small little assembly gathering in the name of the Lord Jesus for the last couple decades. But my point is that I had to train myself how to read the scriptures. My parents changed religious traditions so often when I was growing up that I recognized, even at a young age, that each tradition trains you to read the Bible through their eyes. So I started reading the scripture myself, without commentaries or study notes, as if I knew nothing about the Bible. I quit counting how many times I read the Bible from cover-to-cover (I’m somewhere around 70 times, give-or-take.) But one thing was certainly clear to me: Acts is a book of history, not doctrine. I treat it much like I do the historical books of the OT. Just because someone does it, or says it, in Acts, does not make it normative. It’s telling a story. Luke is summarizing large sermons in just a few words, giving us the gist but not the exact wording. One can read Peter’s sermon on Pentecost in a couple minutes. I’m sure he spoke for more than a couple minutes. It’s just broad summaries. We are given general models of sermons. For instance, if you look at all the sermons in Acts, you’ll see several themes that are constantly mentioned: repentance, faith, Jesus as the Messiah, the Holy Spirit, the forgiveness of sins. But they aren’t always related in the same way. Acts 2 has repentance and baptism leads to forgiveness of sins and receiving the Holy Spirit. Faith isn’t even mentioned (though it is probably assumed). But in Acts 8 believers are baptized, but they don’t receive the Holy Spirit until some time later. In Acts 10, repentance isn’t mentioned (though it is assumed in chapter 11), but the Holy Spirit is received before baptism. So there isn’t a consistent model in Acts to hang our hat on. Therefore, I hypothesize that Acts isn’t meant to be a doctrinal book like one of the epistles. It’s just a book of history. It gives us general models for understanding early church history, the expansion of Christianity outside of Jerusalem, and a general idea of how the Apostles preached. Let’s take Acts 22:16. Could Ananias have been speaking metaphorically? Sure. Could Ananias have simply been wrong? Sure. David was a prophet of God and was sometimes wrong. Could Ananias have been spot on? Sure. But Acts is a book that accurately summarizes what people said. It does not necessarily mean that what they said was right doctrine. I treat Acts very differently than I do Romans, for instance. Anyway, I think that one inescapable point of Acts is that all the Apostles saw repentance, faith, and baptism as a single act of conversion. They did not separate them like so many do today. It was unthinkable that anyone who professed repentance and faith would not be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. They saw it as a single process. Usually, except in Paul’s case, just a few minutes separated the profession of faith and baptism. I do not think Luke was trying to make the point that justification happens at the Faith stage instead of the Baptism stage. I don’t think either he or the Apostles saw them as separate stages. I think they saw them as a single process. I think Peter used the term Baptism as the terminal event in the process of conversion. I don’t think ever even wondered if the actual forgiveness of sins happened at this stage or five minutes later at that stage. I just don’t think their minds worked that way. Paul’s mind might have however. Paul seems to focus primarily, though not exclusively, on the faith stage. But I think that’s largely because of his fights with the judaizers. But I definitely think that the early church required baptism as the last step in conversion. It isn’t suggested, but mandatory. Though it looks like some in the early church, like Peter and Ananias, saw it as the seminal moment in justification, it certainly seems to me that Paul did not necessarily agree. I know you think this is all probably a bunch of nonsense, but I offer it in good faith, hoping it helps you. Anyway, thanks for bothering to read through my pain-induced rambling.
@@AaronGallagherTVGreat. I’d love to chat with you. I’ll post a much more substantive response a bit later. But I look forward to interacting with you.
Funny. You guys agree with the Catholic view the seventh day advintis view. The Jehovah's witness view. The Mormon view on baptism. All of them also have in common with you the teaching that that are the only true believers. You know who you don't agree with? Reall Christians.
The Truth is determined by the Scriptures. Catholics teach Jesus is Deity. Does that make it wrong? Of course not. It’s what The Bible teaches. The Bible teaches that those who will be saved are those who do what The Bible instructs to be saved.
Hey Jody It is because they all came out of the same movement.. CoC first then came Mormans and so on from there. They are all identified by their golden calf of Baptism.. but they all started Campbell and Scott.. 7 of Alexanders closest preachers left him to join Smith in starting the Mormans ..
Aaron Gallagher you might have a zeal for God, but not the knowledge of His word, hence your erroneous beliefs about salvation, and hence your twisting the scriptures. You quote the Biblical Greek when it suits you, but you don't quote the Biblical Greek when it proves you wrong. You twist Acts 2: 38 Acts 22: 16 and 1 Pet 3: 2. You go by what the translators have said, instead of seeing what the Biblical Greek says. Nowhere does the Biblical Greek say water baptism saves, remits sins, washes sins away, regenerates, puts people into the body of Christ or is needed for salvation. Saved people know that water baptism doesn't save. Unsaved people believe water baptism is needed for salvation. Stop deceiving people. you have been deceived by the devil to deceive people.
Are you saying that Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, 1 Peter 3:21, Titus 3:5, etc have all been translated wrong and those translators who are fluent in Greek don’t know what they’re doing? Seems like you’re saying our English translations are all wrong
@@AaronGallagherTV I'm saying that the translators have misled Biblically ignorant people with those scriptures, as anyone who knows the Bible will know. And as anyone who knows the Biblical Greek will know. I will give you the Biblical Greek for Acts 2: 38 and Acts 22: 16. In the Biblical Greek, there are persons and numbers, and they have to agree in order to build a doctrine, so Acts 2: 48. Repent and remission of sins are both the 2nd person and Plural in number, so remission of sins agrees with Repent, but baptised is the 3rd person and singular in number, so remission of sins doesn't agree with baptised, so you can't build a doctrine on water baptism for the remission of sins, But you can build a doctrine on Repent for the remission of sins. Lk 24: 47. This is how it reads in the Greek, and this is how the people would have heard and understood Peter. "Repent for the remission of sins, then when you are saved you can be baptised in water,and you can receive the gift of the Holy Ghost ". So, you can see how the translators have got it wrong. Baptism in Acts 22: 16, is in the Past tense, here's how it reads in the Biblical Greek. "Arise and be baptised Because your sins have ALREADY BEEN WASHED AWAY when you called on the name of the Lord". Anyone who knows the Bible will know that Saul was saved in Acts 9: 6 when he called on the name of the Lord, be said, "Lord what would you have me to do". Jesus, Ananias, Luke (Who wrote it) and every Christian Greek scholars know that was Paul's conversion. Paul was saved for three days before he was baptised with the Holy Ghost, but he wasn't baptised in water at that time. Proving that water baptism doesn't save. Saved people know that water baptism doesn't save, because they were saved way before they were baptised in water. Unsaved people believe water baptism is needed for salvation.
@@alanhales6369 Hello Alan, So all translators of all major translations have been misleading to all english readers? Your argument with regards to Acts 2:38 is simply just wrong. Biblical writers frequently express second person plurals and third person singulars together. In fact, remission of sins has neither person, nor number. I find it interesting you are claiming the greek is clear. Bruce Metzger said this when asked whether remission of sins goes with only repent, or both... "I may say that, in my view, the phrase eis aphesin harmartion in Acts 2:38 applies in sense to both of the preceeding verbs. With all good wishes, Sincerely yours, Bruce M. Metzger. Art Farstad was the chairman of the NKJV translation committee and when asked the same question he said...“Since the expression eis aphesin hamartion is a prepositional phrase with no verbal endings or singular or plural endings I would certainly agree that gramatically it can go with both repentance and baptism. In fact, I would think that it does go with both of them. Exactly what is the interpretation of it is another question.” John R. Werner who is the International Consultant in Translation to the Wycliffe Bible Translators and a consultant to the Analytical Greek New Testament and Werner said this in response to the same question...“Whenever two verbs are connected by kai (and) and then followed by a modifier (such as a prepositional phrase, as in Acts 2:38), it is grammatically possible that the modifier modifies either both of the verbs, OR ONLY THE LATTER ONE. This is because there is no punctuation in the ancient manuscripts, so we don’t know whether the author intended to pause between the first verb and the “and”. It does not matter that, here in Acts 2:38, one of the verbs is second person plural (“y’all” ye) and the other is third-person singular. They are both imperative and the fact that they are joined together by kai (and) is sufficient evidence that the author may have regarded them as a single unit to which the modifier applied”. Newman and Nida in their Translator’s Handbook on The Acts of the Apostles, Page 60, published by United Bible Societities says...“So that your sins will be forgiven (literally “into a forgiveness of your sins”) in the Greek may express either purpose or result, but the large majority of translators understand it as indicating purpose. The phrase modifies both main verbs: turn away from your sins (repent) and be baptized." This construction of second person plurals and 3rd person singulars is expressed in other passages which I have listed below. 1. 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 “Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given orders to the churches of Galatia, so you (2nd person plural) must do also: On the first day of the week let each one of you (3rd person singular) lay something aside, storing up as he may prosper).” 2. Acts 3:26 “To you (2nd person plural) first, God, having raised up His Servant Jesus, sent Him to bless you (2nd person plural), in turning away every one of you (3rd person singular) from (preposition) your iniquities.” 3. 1 Thessalonians 4:3-4 “...you should abstain (2nd person plural) from sexual immorality; that each of you should know (3rd person singular) how to pos- sess his own vessel in (preposition) sanctification and honor.” 4. Exodus 16:29 “Let every man remain (2nd person plural imperative) in his place; let no man (3rd person singular imperative) go out of his place on the seventh day.” 5. Joshua 6:10 49 “Now Joshua had commanded the people, saying, ‘You shall not shout (2nd person plural imperative) or make any noise with your voice (3rd person singular imperative).’” 6. 2 Kings 10:19 “Now therefore, call (2nd person plural imperative) to me all the prophets of Baal, all his servants, and all his priests. Let no one be missing (3rd person singular imperative), for I have a great sacrifice for Baal.” There is absolutely no syntactical justification for claiming that the 2nd person plural imperative and the 3rd person singular imperative cannot refer to the same subject. The feature is a normal idiomatic usage that is common in Greek. Some grammarians refer to it as the “distributive imperatival usage.”
@@AaronGallagherTV the translators have misled Biblically ignorant people with some scriptures. And modern Bible translations are even worse. I have given you the Biblical Greek truth about persons and numbers having to agree in order to build a doctrine, but you can't believe it, because you know that if you do believe it, you'll have to admit that you are wrong, but instead of admitting that you are wrong, you say the Bible and the Biblical Greek is wrong. You should go by what the Bible says about salvation, not just by the a few out of context scripture on water baptism says. Because there are many scriptures that proves water baptism isn't needed for salvation, but you take the few out of context scripture on water baptism to build your erroneous beliefs on. If you ever get saved, the Holy Spirit of truth can reveal the Biblical truths to you.
Very simple and clear. Thank you brother.
Clear , straight forward teaching . Plain as can be. Right from the Bible. Thankyou for your teaching.
This subject needs teaching much more than it has been in the past.
as always excellant
Been studying the subject of baptism being essential unto salvation for close to 40 years and even more persuaded every day that it is part and parcel of the saving grace of our Lord Jesus Christ's Redemption - Thus ministering the great commission of Jesus Christ - and agreeing fully with you Brother Aaron - Keep up the good fight of Faith and correctly and rightly divided Word of Truth ✅
@@driesvzyl143 appreciate this comment. I concur the more one studies with an open heart and mind they will see it is how God chose men to be saved along with belief, confession, and repentance. All are a part of God’s plan to show His grace to man!
Wow…so clear. Excellent
Haven't been on this CZcams account in forever. Things sure have changed since the guitar playing videos. Good for you, man. Hope things keep going great for you.
Absolutely! Thanks a lot!
Great video, Aaron!
didn't you give guitar tutorials? I subbed to you many years ago! I happy to see you found our lord and spreading the word!
Yes sir! Used to have this account as guitar lessons only but found another passion as well! I still play though!
@@AaronGallagherTV Good for you! I remember the early tutorials, a little rough with the vocals, then I checked in on you and you had amazing vocals! With the help of youtube, I was able to play in a classic rock band in my late 50s. While searching christian content, I just recently
rediscovered your channel. I went to subscribed and saw that I was already subbed lol.
anyway, thought Id throw that out there. God Bless Aaron
@@bcrumpty that’s awesome! Thank you for that! That’s great about your band too! It’s been an interesting last 15 years but the Lord has been good to me!
Hey Aaron, can you do a lesson on false doctrines that arose from the Protestant rejection of Catholicism’s false doctrines?
For example, Protestants reject [scriptural] baptism, due to Catholicism’s corrupted teaching on the matter.
Or Protestant teach faith alone because Catholicism taught unscriptural works.
Love your work Aaron. I would love to reach out to you man.
Email me at Gallagher@GBNTV.org
I’m so confused… when God intervened in my life- I repented , then later on , about less than a month , I was baptized with the Holy Spirit , and I know all this because I documented the events- then , years later did water baptism to outwardly confess, to all worlds ours and spiritual to whom I belonged.
@@michelefortino3233 hello Michelle, thanks for the comment. I’m happy to talk with you more. You can email me at gallagher@gbntv.org if you’d like to
So Arron tell me this ..
With the heart man Believeth Unto - to - righteousness..
And with the Mouth Baptism is unto - to- Salavtion.
Your golden calf is baptism.. I have never heard anyone walk right over the truth and still miss it this bad..
Bless your heart ... It is so simple you really can't see it..
- Your Spirit master would be proud of this word salad..
- how can a man Baptize with his mouth..
if you have to change the Bible this much just to fit your religion ...then maybe you need to just change your religion Instead
.
Very good
What a joke..
This is ao sad..
My! You certainly aren’t reading your theology into these verses. (Actually that’s sarcasm. This is craziness. He starts with his own premises, then forces that perspective onto verses that have nothing whatsoever to do with what he’s claiming. This will only make sense to the CoC who have been trained to read the NT that way.)
Hello Todd! I appreciate you watching. You're free to disagree. I previously did not believe one must be baptized to be saved, but after studying this account, the facts changed my mind. Paul was told by an inspired man he had not called on the name of the Lord after Paul had already called Jesus Lord audibly, prayed for 3 days while fasting, repented, changed his life, had a miraculous vision and been miraculously healed. After doing all of those things, Ananias, an inspired man (Mark 16:20), tells Paul he still needs to arise and be baptized and wash away his sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
@@AaronGallagherTV Wow! You’re as nice in person as you seem on your videos 😁 For the record though, interpreting Romans 10 through the lens of Acts 2 and Acts 22 doesn’t make a lot of sense. Nowhere is baptism even mentioned in that Romans passage. I’m actually less antagonistic to the CoC position than most, but that doesn’t make a lot of sense biblically. You are reading your theology into this passage rather than getting your theology from the passage. I hope that makes sense to you. I think a better view would be to shape your theology to the NT rather than the other way around. But I must admit that I really enjoy listening to you. You seem to be a very nice man who has really thought about these issues. But if I may suggest … lol … maybe Acts 2:38 and Acts 22:16 are not the key verses for understanding justification. I know you hate the idea, but it give it a thought. (I know you won’t, but I gotta try 🤪). Thanks so much for your kind response. I know you must be extremely busy.
@@toddstevens9667 Hello Todd! I appreciate your thoughts! Would love to talk more with you on this if you ever want to. I try to keeup up w comments but miss some sometimes. Glad I caught yours!
I try to think chronologically so I always approach the phrase or an idea to the best I can that way. Acts 2:21/38, then Acts 9/22 would occur around the same time as Romans 10:14.
I'd be open to hearing your thought on justification, as I have always thought that justification and salvation are linked chronologically based on Acts 13:38-39. To me, when you put together the many passages that refer to salvation and justification, you get the essentiality of believe, repentance, confession, and baptism. Also living faithfully. My email is gallagher@gbntv.org if you I miss a comment on here! Have a great day and thanks for watching even when you disagree! I am honored you take the time to watch.
@@AaronGallagherTV I’m a bit embarrassed by my original comment, not because I disagree with it, but because it sounds so ill-tempered. Unfortunately, I’ve been in the midst of passing a kidney stone for the last five days and it has made me a bit ill-tempered. But a little about me to give you context about my comments, in my earliest years I was raised CoC. Then my parents decided to become orthodox Presbyterian. When they could stomach their crazy baptism ideas no longer, we became Baptist. But I haven’t attended a Baptist church for decades. I have attended a small little assembly gathering in the name of the Lord Jesus for the last couple decades. But my point is that I had to train myself how to read the scriptures. My parents changed religious traditions so often when I was growing up that I recognized, even at a young age, that each tradition trains you to read the Bible through their eyes. So I started reading the scripture myself, without commentaries or study notes, as if I knew nothing about the Bible. I quit counting how many times I read the Bible from cover-to-cover (I’m somewhere around 70 times, give-or-take.)
But one thing was certainly clear to me: Acts is a book of history, not doctrine. I treat it much like I do the historical books of the OT. Just because someone does it, or says it, in Acts, does not make it normative. It’s telling a story. Luke is summarizing large sermons in just a few words, giving us the gist but not the exact wording. One can read Peter’s sermon on Pentecost in a couple minutes. I’m sure he spoke for more than a couple minutes. It’s just broad summaries. We are given general models of sermons. For instance, if you look at all the sermons in Acts, you’ll see several themes that are constantly mentioned: repentance, faith, Jesus as the Messiah, the Holy Spirit, the forgiveness of sins. But they aren’t always related in the same way. Acts 2 has repentance and baptism leads to forgiveness of sins and receiving the Holy Spirit. Faith isn’t even mentioned (though it is probably assumed). But in Acts 8 believers are baptized, but they don’t receive the Holy Spirit until some time later. In Acts 10, repentance isn’t mentioned (though it is assumed in chapter 11), but the Holy Spirit is received before baptism. So there isn’t a consistent model in Acts to hang our hat on. Therefore, I hypothesize that Acts isn’t meant to be a doctrinal book like one of the epistles. It’s just a book of history. It gives us general models for understanding early church history, the expansion of Christianity outside of Jerusalem, and a general idea of how the Apostles preached. Let’s take Acts 22:16. Could Ananias have been speaking metaphorically? Sure. Could Ananias have simply been wrong? Sure. David was a prophet of God and was sometimes wrong. Could Ananias have been spot on? Sure. But Acts is a book that accurately summarizes what people said. It does not necessarily mean that what they said was right doctrine. I treat Acts very differently than I do Romans, for instance.
Anyway, I think that one inescapable point of Acts is that all the Apostles saw repentance, faith, and baptism as a single act of conversion. They did not separate them like so many do today. It was unthinkable that anyone who professed repentance and faith would not be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. They saw it as a single process. Usually, except in Paul’s case, just a few minutes separated the profession of faith and baptism. I do not think Luke was trying to make the point that justification happens at the Faith stage instead of the Baptism stage. I don’t think either he or the Apostles saw them as separate stages. I think they saw them as a single process. I think Peter used the term Baptism as the terminal event in the process of conversion. I don’t think ever even wondered if the actual forgiveness of sins happened at this stage or five minutes later at that stage. I just don’t think their minds worked that way. Paul’s mind might have however. Paul seems to focus primarily, though not exclusively, on the faith stage. But I think that’s largely because of his fights with the judaizers. But I definitely think that the early church required baptism as the last step in conversion. It isn’t suggested, but mandatory. Though it looks like some in the early church, like Peter and Ananias, saw it as the seminal moment in justification, it certainly seems to me that Paul did not necessarily agree.
I know you think this is all probably a bunch of nonsense, but I offer it in good faith, hoping it helps you. Anyway, thanks for bothering to read through my pain-induced rambling.
@@AaronGallagherTVGreat. I’d love to chat with you. I’ll post a much more substantive response a bit later. But I look forward to interacting with you.
Funny. You guys agree with the Catholic view the seventh day advintis view. The Jehovah's witness view. The Mormon view on baptism. All of them also have in common with you the teaching that that are the only true believers. You know who you don't agree with? Reall Christians.
The Truth is determined by the Scriptures. Catholics teach Jesus is Deity. Does that make it wrong? Of course not. It’s what The Bible teaches. The Bible teaches that those who will be saved are those who do what The Bible instructs to be saved.
Could you tell us how you called upon the name of the Lord and give some verses to support that view?
@@michaelszabo6824 if this is addressed to me, Acts 22:16, Acts 2:21,38
Hey Jody
It is because they all came out of the same movement..
CoC first then came Mormans and so on from there.
They are all identified by their golden calf of Baptism.. but they all started Campbell and Scott..
7 of Alexanders closest preachers left him to join Smith in starting the Mormans ..
Aaron Gallagher you might have a zeal for God, but not the knowledge of His word, hence your erroneous beliefs about salvation, and hence your twisting the scriptures.
You quote the Biblical Greek when it suits you, but you don't quote the Biblical Greek when it proves you wrong.
You twist Acts 2: 38 Acts 22: 16 and 1 Pet 3: 2. You go by what the translators have said, instead of seeing what the Biblical Greek says.
Nowhere does the Biblical Greek say water baptism saves, remits sins, washes sins away, regenerates, puts people into the body of Christ or is needed for salvation.
Saved people know that water baptism doesn't save. Unsaved people believe water baptism is needed for salvation.
Stop deceiving people. you have been deceived by the devil to deceive people.
Are you saying that Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, 1 Peter 3:21, Titus 3:5, etc have all been translated wrong and those translators who are fluent in Greek don’t know what they’re doing? Seems like you’re saying our English translations are all wrong
@@AaronGallagherTV I'm saying that the translators have misled Biblically ignorant people with those scriptures, as anyone who knows the Bible will know.
And as anyone who knows the Biblical Greek will know.
I will give you the Biblical Greek for Acts 2: 38 and Acts 22: 16.
In the Biblical Greek, there are persons and numbers, and they have to agree in order to build a doctrine, so Acts 2: 48.
Repent and remission of sins are both the 2nd person and Plural in number, so remission of sins agrees with Repent, but baptised is the 3rd person and singular in number, so remission of sins doesn't agree with baptised, so you can't build a doctrine on water baptism for the remission of sins, But you can build a doctrine on Repent for the remission of sins. Lk 24: 47.
This is how it reads in the Greek, and this is how the people would have heard and understood Peter.
"Repent for the remission of sins, then when you are saved you can be baptised in water,and you can receive the gift of the Holy Ghost ".
So, you can see how the translators have got it wrong.
Baptism in Acts 22: 16, is in the Past tense, here's how it reads in the Biblical Greek.
"Arise and be baptised Because your sins have ALREADY BEEN WASHED AWAY when you called on the name of the Lord".
Anyone who knows the Bible will know that Saul was saved in Acts 9: 6 when he called on the name of the Lord, be said, "Lord what would you have me to do".
Jesus, Ananias, Luke (Who wrote it) and every Christian Greek scholars know that was Paul's conversion.
Paul was saved for three days before he was baptised with the Holy Ghost, but he wasn't baptised in water at that time. Proving that water baptism doesn't save.
Saved people know that water baptism doesn't save, because they were saved way before they were baptised in water.
Unsaved people believe water baptism is needed for salvation.
@@alanhales6369 Hello Alan, So all translators of all major translations have been misleading to all english readers? Your argument with regards to Acts 2:38 is simply just wrong.
Biblical writers frequently express second person plurals and third person singulars together. In fact, remission of sins has neither person, nor number.
I find it interesting you are claiming the greek is clear.
Bruce Metzger said this when asked whether remission of sins goes with only repent, or both... "I may say that, in my view, the phrase eis aphesin harmartion in Acts 2:38 applies in sense to both of the preceeding verbs. With all good wishes, Sincerely yours, Bruce M. Metzger.
Art Farstad was the chairman of the NKJV translation committee and when asked the same question he said...“Since the expression eis aphesin hamartion is a prepositional phrase with no verbal endings or singular or plural endings I would certainly agree that gramatically it can go with both repentance and baptism. In fact, I would think that it does go with both of them. Exactly what is the interpretation of it is another question.”
John R. Werner who is the International Consultant in Translation to the Wycliffe Bible Translators and a consultant to the Analytical Greek New Testament and Werner said this in response to the same question...“Whenever two verbs are connected by kai (and) and then followed by a modifier (such as a prepositional phrase, as in Acts 2:38), it is grammatically possible that the modifier modifies either both of the verbs, OR ONLY THE LATTER ONE. This is because there is no punctuation in the ancient manuscripts, so we don’t know whether the author intended to pause between the first verb and the “and”. It does not matter that, here in Acts 2:38, one of the verbs is second person plural (“y’all” ye) and the other is third-person singular. They are both imperative and the fact that they are joined together by kai (and) is sufficient evidence that the author may have regarded them as a single unit to which the modifier applied”.
Newman and Nida in their Translator’s Handbook on The Acts of the Apostles, Page 60, published by United Bible Societities says...“So that your sins will be forgiven (literally “into a forgiveness of your sins”) in the Greek may express either purpose or result, but the large majority of translators understand it as indicating purpose. The phrase modifies both main verbs: turn away from your sins (repent) and be baptized."
This construction of second person plurals and 3rd person singulars is expressed in other passages which I have listed below.
1. 1 Corinthians 16:1-2
“Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given orders to the churches of Galatia, so you (2nd person plural) must do also: On the first day of the week let each one of you (3rd person singular) lay something aside, storing up as he may prosper).”
2. Acts 3:26
“To you (2nd person plural) first, God, having raised up His Servant Jesus, sent Him to bless you (2nd person plural), in turning away every one of you (3rd person singular) from (preposition) your iniquities.”
3. 1 Thessalonians 4:3-4
“...you should abstain (2nd person plural) from sexual immorality; that each of you should know (3rd person singular) how to pos- sess his own vessel in (preposition) sanctification and honor.”
4. Exodus 16:29
“Let every man remain (2nd person plural imperative) in his place; let no man (3rd person singular imperative) go out of his place on the seventh day.”
5. Joshua 6:10
49
“Now Joshua had commanded the people, saying, ‘You shall not shout (2nd person plural imperative) or make any noise with your voice (3rd person singular imperative).’”
6. 2 Kings 10:19
“Now therefore, call (2nd person plural imperative) to me all the prophets of Baal, all his servants, and all his priests. Let no one be missing (3rd person singular imperative), for I have a great sacrifice for Baal.”
There is absolutely no syntactical justification for claiming that the 2nd person plural imperative and the 3rd person singular imperative cannot refer to the same subject. The feature is a normal idiomatic usage that is common in Greek. Some grammarians refer to it as the “distributive imperatival usage.”
@@AaronGallagherTV the translators have misled Biblically ignorant people with some scriptures. And modern Bible translations are even worse.
I have given you the Biblical Greek truth about persons and numbers having to agree in order to build a doctrine, but you can't believe it, because you know that if you do believe it, you'll have to admit that you are wrong, but instead of admitting that you are wrong, you say the Bible and the Biblical Greek is wrong.
You should go by what the Bible says about salvation, not just by the a few out of context scripture on water baptism says.
Because there are many scriptures that proves water baptism isn't needed for salvation, but you take the few out of context scripture on water baptism to build your erroneous beliefs on.
If you ever get saved, the Holy Spirit of truth can reveal the Biblical truths to you.
@@AaronGallagherTV do you ever stop letting the devil use you to spread his lies?.