Featured Why don't Baptists believe Acts 2:38 literally?

Hey, this is a debate or did you forget? You did not even respond to what I said, but instead fled to another subject. Try responding to what someone says, it makes for a better debate.

 

According to 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14 that choice is "TO" salvation but "THROUGH" sanctification of the Holy Spirit AND belief of the truth.

Therefore it is correct to say that salvation is by God's choosing (cause) but it is not without our choosing (consequence). - Impossible for infants.

Again 1 Thessalonians 1:4-5 tells us that we can know our election because the gospel does not come in word only but in power and in the Spirit and in MUCH ASSURANCE! - Impossible for infants.

There is not one command, not one example of any infant being baptized in the New Testament and generally all passages used to INFER such are DRY passages.

 

The question is not whether baptism saves, as the scriptures clearly says it does. The question is not whether baptism washes away sins, as the scriptures clearly says it does. However, the question is HOW does baptism save and wash away sins - literally or figuratively. The scriptues clearly says it does as a "FIGURE" - 1 Peter. 3:21.

Moreover, the same can be said of the sacrficial and ceremonial system in the Old Testament. The language of redemption was always directly connected with sacrifices and ceremonial cleansings ("for sins" "for thy cleansing") however, Hebrews 10:1-4 informs it did not LITERALLY remit or wash away sins at all but only did in figure as a "shadow."

Jesus illustrates this clearly in Luke 5:12-15 with the cleansing of the leper:

12 ¶ And it came to pass, when he was in a certain city, behold a man full of leprosy: who seeing Jesus fell on his face, and besought him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.
13 And he put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will: be thou clean. And immediately the leprosy departed from him.
14 And he charged him to tell no man: but go, and shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing, according as Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.

He was LITERALLY cleansed "immediately"

He was nevertheless told to go "offer for thy cleansing according as Moses commanded." This involved a sacrfice "for thy cleansing." Did he offer the sacrifice in order to be cleansed but because he had been cleansed? Both! He offered a sacrifice in order to be cleansed CEREMONIALLY or FIGURATIVELY because he had already been cleansed LITERALLY.

Bottom line it was "for a testiomy unto them." Likewise with baptism and the Lord's Supper as they are New Testament counterparts to Old Testament ceremonial institutions.

So it is very simple. When one believes they are saved LITERALLY. When one submits to baptism they are saved FIGURATIVELY. Scripture must be compared to scripture if truth is to be arrived at.

 

No, you are ignoring my response. I admitted that the passage literally states exactly what it says. I admitted that it literally states baptism washes away sins. Can't be more literal than that. However, you must admit the text does not inform us HOW baptism washes away our sins. I have also addressed the HOW of it by LITERAL interpretation of Hebrews 10:1-4; 1 Peter. 3:21 and Luke 5:12-15.

I believe that scriptures should always be LITERALLY interpreted unless the immediate context and/or overall context demands otherwise.

So you see I am not talking past you at all but directly addressing your intrepretation.

 

I think yoiu have to ask what 'for' means! I always found a dictionairy helps because words have semantic ranges, 'for' can be used synonymously/ interchangeably with 'because' in certain contexts.

 

And I am doing that, then equally you are taking words out of God's mouth because you don't even complete the sentence in your quote

Literally or literallisticly as you do?

As for our understanding of the bible, firstly it shows a base ingorence of history to associate the baptists with the anabaptists. They are very distinct groups that do share a common family tree, secondly have you heard of the Didache? Our baptismal practise has the support of the earliest christains writinsg outside of the scriptures themselves - the lutheran view does not!

 

Tell me where in the bible we read that God 'repents' on our behalf! Afterall you claim to be the one who takes the bible lieterally - where is this repentence of God to be found?

 

The first part is funny, and the rest is true. Excellent!

 

I am a baptist, but would say that while the preferred and the biblical model is believers baptism, would say that being done in a different fashion than imersion is different than one say that there is regeneration in the act of it...

That there is a Grace of some type within the act of it happening...

 

I hold to the DoG, and belive that "Grace" as the bible defines it is fully and totally in the act of jesus death as atonement for my sins, and once he becomes my Lord and saviour, ALL necessary Grace has already come from God to my behalf!

prayer, bible reading/study, fellowshipping etc are ways to grow and maturity, but not "grace" towards me!

 

The EOC baptizes by immersion only -- even babies! That should tell anyone what those who read the original Greek NT believed about the mode of baptism.

 

Yes this is true.

 

In fact, they dunk not once but three times. Evidence for this triple immersion goes back to perhaps the late 1st century in the early church manual The Didache. In the same document, however, pouring is mentioned as acceptable alternative.

 

This is also true.

 

It's a poor reading of the Didache if it does (in my opinion)