Your response surprises me. It was a gracious response. I may have been too severe on you. My apologies.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
It is impossible to convince a Mormon that he is wrong!
- Thread starter Wittenberger
- Start date
Your response surprises me. It was a gracious response. I may have been too severe on you. My apologies.
Wittenberger
New Member
I am very happy to see that you believe that the Jews in Christ's day were baptizing proselytes, Gentile converts to the Jewish faith. The Jews baptized the entire family: men, women, children and infants. It was a baptism "unto" or for repentance. Its purpose was to spiritually cleanse the converts from the sin of their paganism to the righteousness of the Faith in the One, True God.
You are assuming that John's baptism did not follow that pattern. The Bible does not specify this. I suggest neither one of us jump to conclusions yet.
One more thing, I find it shocking that fundamental Baptists, who believe that the King James Bible IS the very Word of God would try to change the wording in Matthew 3:11 and in Acts 2:38.
"I baptize you with water UNTO repentance..."
"Be baptized...FOR the remission of sins"
"Unto" and "for" in no way mean "because"! We should be very careful when it comes to telling God he used the wrong words.
There is no translation of the Bible on planet earth that translates those two words "because".
Here you are making a tremendous error in judgement and in intepretation. You are making extreme leaps that have absolute NOTHING to support them in scripture.
John repudiated spiritual cleansing by baptism and baptism "for" repentance (Mt. 3:7-10). Instead he demands "fruits" or PROOF of a changed life toward sin (repentance) and faith in Christ as prerequisite for baptism (Jn. 3:36).
The Jews of Christ's day disobeyed the design of ceremonial cleansing. God NEVER at ANY TIME designed ceremonial cleansing, whether it was for furniture, preists, or proselytes to be for the purpose of "spiritual" cleansing. That idea is clearly repudiated by the Old Testament scriptures and New Testament Scriptures but as your righly state was practiced by the phariseeical/saduceeical religion of the day. That is precisely why their was a dispute between John's disciples over purification with the Pharisees (Jn. 3
. I am assuming NO SUCH THING! The scriptures make it crystal clear that the pattern of John's baptism was extremely different in design than the paganistic perversions of the Jews of that day. The Jewish religion had so far apostatized from the Law of Moses due to "TRADITIONS" that there was no resemblance between TRADITION and God's Word and that is why the LEADERSHIP rejected both John and Jesus.
Do you really believe I think the KJV is inspired???? They were paedobaptists an their bias is clearly seen as they completely ignore the contextual factors.
Think for a second. If John refused to baptize anyone who does not manifest "FRUIT" of repentance than how in the world can his baptism be called a baptism "UNTO" or that LEADS TO REPENTANCE? That is absurd rationality! The Greek "eis" means "BECAUSE OF" repentance manifested by "fruit."
I assumed too much by your last post. I assumed you saw the glaring truth of the text but I was wrong - you are spirituallly blinded to the Word of God still on this matter.
Wittenberger
New Member
Here you are making a tremendous error in judgement and in intepretation. You are making extreme leaps that have absolute NOTHING to support them in scripture.
John repudiated spiritual cleansing by baptism and baptism "for" repentance (Mt. 3:7-10). Instead he demands "fruits" or PROOF of a changed life toward sin (repentance) and faith in Christ as prerequisite for baptism (Jn. 3:36).
The Jews of Christ's day disobeyed the design of ceremonial cleansing. God NEVER at ANY TIME designed ceremonial cleansing, whether it was for furniture, preists, or proselytes to be for the purpose of "spiritual" cleansing. That idea is clearly repudiated by the Old Testament scriptures and New Testament Scriptures but as your righly state was practiced by the phariseeical/saduceeical religion of the day. That is precisely why their was a dispute between John's disciples over purification with the Pharisees (Jn. 3
I am assuming NO SUCH THING! The scriptures make it crystal clear that the pattern of John's baptism was extremely different in design than the paganistic perversions of the Jews of that day. The Jewish religion had so far apostatized from the Law of Moses due to "TRADITIONS" that there was no resemblance between TRADITION and God's Word and that is why the LEADERSHIP rejected both John and Jesus.
Do you really believe I think the KJV is inspired???? They were paedobaptists an their bias is clearly seen as they completely ignore the contextual factors.
Think for a second. If John refused to baptize anyone who does not manifest "FRUIT" of repentance than how in the world can his baptism be called a baptism "UNTO" or that LEADS TO REPENTANCE? That is absurd rationality! The Greek "eis" means "BECAUSE OF" repentance manifested by "fruit."
I assumed too much by your last post. I assumed you saw the glaring truth of the text but I was wrong - you are spirituallly blinded to the Word of God still on this matter.
Don't write me off, yet, brother. I seek the truth, not to "win one for the Lutherans". I will carefully listen to everything you say. You are very knowledgeable and as a pastor, in the service of our Savior, I hold you in honor and respect.
If I disagree with you or criticize one of your statements it is not because I am trying to put you down or "beat" you, it is because you have not convinced me. Keep trying!
Like I have said before, I believe one of two Christian denominations has the real truth of the Gospel: Lutherans or Baptists. I am here for Baptists to prove me wrong or prove me right. I seek the truth, not to win.
they were jews, who understand that by being water baptised in the name of jesus, was identifing themselves with and agreeing that he was the Messiah!
Literally, it would be rendered as due tio being saved by his name, the source of their sins being remitted, they were than baptised into his name!
Michael Wrenn
New Member
I would like to note that Rotherham's Emphasized Bible, probably the most literal translation ever produced, uses the word "immerse" or "immersion" in every place where the word "baptize" or "baptism" is used in other versions.
This version also correctly uses the word "eon" (aion) in place of "eternal" -- but that's another discussion.
There's a lot to be said for Eastern Orthodoxy; it escaped the Latin corruptions and errors.
Michael Wrenn
New Member
Wow, that is very narrow! That is an astonishing statement!
Wittenberger
New Member
Just to clarify: I am not saying that other Christian churches do not have the Gospel or do not have the truth. I believe that the overwhelming majority do.
What I meant is that, in my opinion, the Baptist/evangelical and Lutheran interpretations of the Bible seem the most plausible.
I don't feel that way about the RCC and the EOC because they hold traditions on the same level of authority as the Word.
I have trouble with the Reformed and their belief that God chooses people to go to hell, and that Christ did noy die for all men, just for the elect. I also do not understand why they bother to baptize infants if baptism has no regenerational properties.
So who does that leave? There may be some smaller groups I left out but the majority of Christians are in one of these camps:
RCC
EOC
Lutheran
Reformed
Baptist
I was speaking of these groups.
Wittenberger
New Member
"All of Jerusalem, Judea, and the Jordan River area" came out to be baptized for repentance for the coming of the Christ/the messiah. "Many" of the Pharisees and Saducees came to be baptized. This sounds like the entire Jewish nation (the sourthern half) went out to be baptized.
All these thousands of people came out to be baptized for the coming Messiah. The name Jesus of Nazareth is not mentioned. John's baptism was an accepted practice by the Jews, who saw it as a Jewish baptism, not a new religion. They did not understand who John was preparing the way for.
was referencing the Acts 2 passage though....
Are you saying that the baptism of John SAME as NT Baptism?
Wittenberger
New Member
Here you are making a tremendous error in judgement and in intepretation. You are making extreme leaps that have absolute NOTHING to support them in scripture.
John repudiated spiritual cleansing by baptism and baptism "for" repentance (Mt. 3:7-10). Instead he demands "fruits" or PROOF of a changed life toward sin (repentance) and faith in Christ as prerequisite for baptism (Jn. 3:36).
The Jews of Christ's day disobeyed the design of ceremonial cleansing. God NEVER at ANY TIME designed ceremonial cleansing, whether it was for furniture, preists, or proselytes to be for the purpose of "spiritual" cleansing. That idea is clearly repudiated by the Old Testament scriptures and New Testament Scriptures but as your righly state was practiced by the phariseeical/saduceeical religion of the day. That is precisely why their was a dispute between John's disciples over purification with the Pharisees (Jn. 3
I am assuming NO SUCH THING! The scriptures make it crystal clear that the pattern of John's baptism was extremely different in design than the paganistic perversions of the Jews of that day. The Jewish religion had so far apostatized from the Law of Moses due to "TRADITIONS" that there was no resemblance between TRADITION and God's Word and that is why the LEADERSHIP rejected both John and Jesus.
Do you really believe I think the KJV is inspired???? They were paedobaptists an their bias is clearly seen as they completely ignore the contextual factors.
Think for a second. If John refused to baptize anyone who does not manifest "FRUIT" of repentance than how in the world can his baptism be called a baptism "UNTO" or that LEADS TO REPENTANCE? That is absurd rationality! The Greek "eis" means "BECAUSE OF" repentance manifested by "fruit."
I assumed too much by your last post. I assumed you saw the glaring truth of the text but I was wrong - you are spirituallly blinded to the Word of God still on this matter.
I erred. I am happy to hear you do not believe that God came down from heaven and put the KJV in the hands of King James I of England!
I agree with you that the Jews who were coming to be baptized by John had to have a spirit of repentance for the baptism for repentance to have any spiritual value. Simply showing up to get dunked in water did not help the Jews spiritually and it still doesn't today.
So what was the purpose of John's baptism? Why was the entire southern half of the Jewish nation, including the Pharisees and Saducees, coming to the Jordan River to be dunked in water by a guy in camel's skin? Is there a command in the OT from God that says that a believer must be baptized after having repented? John never mentions the name Jesus of Nazareth, he just mentions the coming Messiah. It seems to me that what is going on here is this:
A Jew, who has faith in God, strives to follow the Law, but of course cannot, comes to the Jordan with a heart of repentance for his sins and in baptism God forgives the sins. The Jew is not forgiven just because he got wet. He is forgiven because he repented, did what God told him to do AND had faith that God would do what he promised (forgive him). So when was he forgiven? When was his repentance accepted by God? When was he cleansed of his sins? Were his sins forgiven when he prayed in his heart to God for forgiveness before he steps into the water to be baptized or are his sins forgiven due to his faith and repentance during the act of John's baptism?
If the purpose of John's baptism was as a sign of forgiveness only, if forgiveness could be obtained simply by saying a simple, sincere prayer asking for forgiveness, then why bother traveling all the way down to the Jordan to get wet?? John wasn't baptizing people into the name of Jesus. He was baptizing them into the name of the Messiah/the Lord. Are we really to believe that all those thousands of people, Pharisees and Saducees, were coming to be baptized into the name of Jesus, the son of Joseph, the carpenter in a new Christian form of baptism??
It seems more likely to me that the purpose of John's baptism was this: The Jews were accustomed to baptisms for spiritual cleansings and proselyte conversions. The fact that John was performing an act of immersing people in water was not seen as strange to them. They were coming to get their sins forgiven but some of them did not come with a heart of repentance, they just wanted to cover their bases in case the real Messiah was about to appear. John refused to give them baptism and therefore refused to grant them the forgiveness of sins.
Repentance, faith, and baptism were all required to receive the forgiveness of sins. Do you believe that someone standing on the river bank with a repentant heart and faith in God, but who refuses to submit to God's command of baptism, would have received the forgiveness of his sins just by saying a prayer of repentance? NO! God demanded a baptism for repentance, not a prayer. On the flip side, God didn't promise to forgive everyone who got wet in baptism, only those who had faith and repented.
A Jew who had faith in God, a Jew who was trying his best (but failing) to keep all of the Law, came in a spirit of repentance to John and as John was immersing him into the water, it is then that God forgave the man's sins. Without faith and repentance, however, he just got wet!
Last edited by a moderator:
Wittenberger
New Member
On the topic of proselyte baptism, you state that God did not institute this ritual, that it was man made by the Jews. Do you agree that the Jews were baptizing entire families, including infants, in these "non-God inspired" rituals?
So if I understand correctly what you are saying: water cleansing rituals and proselyte baptisms are not of God and were being used as a pagan practice by the Jews in their conversions of new believer's to the Jewish faith.
My question is this: why on earth would John the Baptist start using the very same "pagan" water ritual as a sign of the coming Messiah? If John's baptism was just for the purpose of a visible sign, or a public profession of faith in the coming Messiah, why not pick some other type of sign like a shaved head, or a type of clothing to wear??
Why pick the very ritual that every Jew in the land knew well as a ritual of spiritual cleansing as taught by the Pharisees?
And even more importantly, why would Jesus choose a pagan water ritual as the sign of Christianity? Why use a pagan ritual as the outward mark, the public profession of the Christian faith?? That makes no sense!
If John and Jesus believed that proselyte baptisms were so evil and "pagan", why is there not one verse in the Bible that condemns this practice? It wasn't as if Gentile conversion rarely happened in those days. Jesus himself says in Matt. 23:15 that the Pharisees "compassed sea and land to make one proselyte." And the Pharisees had three requirements for a Gentile who wanted to convert: Circumcision for men and boys, baptism and sacrifice of all, both males and females, adults, children and infants. Volumes of rabbinical literature record this.
Jesus criticized the Pharisees and scribes for making of their converts "children of hell" like themselves (Matt.23:15) but he never criticized proselyte baptisms or the baptism of the infants of proselytes. If this was such a grave error, giving false hope to the converting parents, don't you think Christ or the Apostles would have said something about this? Jesus criticizes almost all the errors and false rituals of the Pharisees, but he never once says anything about proselyte/infant proselyte baptism. Isn't that odd??
So if I understand correctly what you are saying: water cleansing rituals and proselyte baptisms are not of God and were being used as a pagan practice by the Jews in their conversions of new believer's to the Jewish faith.
My question is this: why on earth would John the Baptist start using the very same "pagan" water ritual as a sign of the coming Messiah? If John's baptism was just for the purpose of a visible sign, or a public profession of faith in the coming Messiah, why not pick some other type of sign like a shaved head, or a type of clothing to wear??
Why pick the very ritual that every Jew in the land knew well as a ritual of spiritual cleansing as taught by the Pharisees?
And even more importantly, why would Jesus choose a pagan water ritual as the sign of Christianity? Why use a pagan ritual as the outward mark, the public profession of the Christian faith?? That makes no sense!
If John and Jesus believed that proselyte baptisms were so evil and "pagan", why is there not one verse in the Bible that condemns this practice? It wasn't as if Gentile conversion rarely happened in those days. Jesus himself says in Matt. 23:15 that the Pharisees "compassed sea and land to make one proselyte." And the Pharisees had three requirements for a Gentile who wanted to convert: Circumcision for men and boys, baptism and sacrifice of all, both males and females, adults, children and infants. Volumes of rabbinical literature record this.
Jesus criticized the Pharisees and scribes for making of their converts "children of hell" like themselves (Matt.23:15) but he never criticized proselyte baptisms or the baptism of the infants of proselytes. If this was such a grave error, giving false hope to the converting parents, don't you think Christ or the Apostles would have said something about this? Jesus criticizes almost all the errors and false rituals of the Pharisees, but he never once says anything about proselyte/infant proselyte baptism. Isn't that odd??
Last edited by a moderator:
Wittenberger
New Member
Michael Wrenn
New Member
Okay, thanks for clarifying.
Michael Wrenn
New Member
Actually, I think there are some who believe that God dropped the KJV intact into the first century but that it wasn't discovered until King James.
And I am not disparaging the KJV, btw; I love the literary quality of it.
Wittenberger
New Member
This is an uncomplicated study of the argument about the Greek word “eis”. in Acts 2:38 does εις mean (1) “in order to receive”, or (2) “because you have received”?
Baptism and the Greek Word “eis”
Here's the text: "Peter said to them, 'Repent and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, for the forgiveness of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit' " (Acts 2:38).
Baptism and Ice
No, we are not going to talk about baptism in frigid conditions! The little word “for” in the phrase "for the forgiveness of sins" translates the original Greek word εις, usually pronounced “ice” or “ees”. Just as our English word “for” has many meanings, so too does the Greek word εις . You often hear an argument made from this diversity of meaning. The argument says that in Acts 2:38 the word “for” means “because of”. So the passage is made to say, "Repent and be baptized because of the forgiveness of sins". In other words a person should be baptized not in order to receive forgiveness, but because forgiveness has already taken place, and therefore baptism is not necessary to forgiveness.
Is this argument correct, or is it a misrepresentation of the passage and the little Greek word εις?
1 Repentance and Baptism
First you will notice that Peter does not speak of baptism only, but of both repentance and baptism. "Repent and let every one of you be baptized... for the forgiveness of sins..." (Acts 2:38). If the argument places forgiveness before baptism, it also places forgiveness before repentance. In other words, a person should repent not to receive forgiveness, but because forgiveness has already taken place, and therefore repentance is not necessary to forgiveness.
This would make all the translators wrong who make Peter say, "Repent and return so that your sins may be blotted out" (Acts 3:19). If the argument is correct, then the translators are incorrect. They should make Peter say, “Repent and return because your sins have been be blotted out.”
Of course the translators are right and the argument wrong. No translators render either Acts 2:38 or Acts 3:19 so as to put repentance after forgiveness. Rather, they all put repentance before forgiveness, as a condition of forgiveness. And if Peter has put repentance before forgiveness, that's where he has also put baptism, because he gave both repentance and baptism the same relationship to forgiveness viz "Repent and ...be baptized... for the forgiveness of sins..." (Acts 2:38).
2 Faith and Confession
As a parallel example, take Paul’s statement, "With the heart one believes resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth one confesses resulting in salvation" (Rom 10:10). In the Greek we have "belief εις righteousness... confession εις salvation" (Rom 10:10). All translators render this passage as though a heartfelt and confessed faith leads to justification. In other words salvation is the outcome of a confessed faith. Translators don't render the verse to say that faith and confession are because of salvation, and come after salvation.
3 Baptism and Death
Jesus spoke of his, "blood of the new covenant, shed for many for (εις) the forgiveness of sins" (Mtt 26:28). As we all know, Jesus did not shed his blood because forgiveness had been granted, but so that it could be. This is another instructive parallel to Acts 2:38.
However it is even more instructive to examine how Paul relates baptism to the death of Christ and our death to sin (Rom 6:3-5). First Paul says, "Don't you know that all of us who have been baptized εις Christ Jesus have been baptized εις his death? Therefore we have been buried with him through baptism εις death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life" (Rom 6:3-4).
Now in this passage, translators put "into" for εις. If, instead, we put the argued “because of ” for εις, it would make some sort of sense —however it would not in the least help the argument. Why not? Because whether Paul said that baptism is “into” Christ’s death or “because of ” Christ’s death the fact remains that we meet and join Christ’s death and resurrection through baptism. We are "buried with him through baptism... so that we might [rise to] walk in newness of life" (Rom 6:4).
The meaning here is clear. Even if Peter said, "be baptized because of the forgiveness of sins" (Acts 2:38) that would simply mean, “You need forgiveness of sin, and Christ's death is your only hope of it. He was killed so you might live. Through baptism you can meet and join the death of Christ, die to sin, and rise to walk in new life. So be baptized because of this forgiveness now waiting for you.”
Wittenberger
New Member
Does anyone on BB have an idea about what percentage of Baptists believe like brother Biblicist that the KJV has translation errors? And, for Baptists who believe this, is there ANY translation of the Holy Bible that they feel was correctly translated?
If the answer is "no", why haven't these Christians translated their own Bible?
Instead of the word "baptism" they could use "immerse in water" in every place that the word baptism/baptize is used. I personally think that would be great! It would end any confusion about when the word baptism means "to immerse in water" and when it means "to be immersed spiritually into Christ or in the Holy Spirit". It would clear up alot of confusion.
Also in discussing the meaning of the Greek word "eis", who best to know the meaning of that word than the Greeks! In the passages of Scripture under discussion, they interpret the word "eis" to mean "for" or "unto".
http://www.goarch.org/chapel/lectionary_view?type=epistle&code=26
I have to take their word for it because...ITS ALL GREEK TO ME!
I hope everyone is having a Happy Labor Day Weekend. God bless!
Last edited by a moderator:
Wittenberger
New Member
The Greek word "eis" as discussed above is translated "for" or "unto" in Matthew 3:11 and the verses in Acts mentioned above. It has never been translated "becuase of" in any translation that I am aware of, including the KJV and the ESV. I agree that the translators of the KJV were all paedo-Baptists, so yes, they could have been biased. But what about modern translations such as the ESV? Were the translators of the ESV all paedo-baptists? Its not like they were under any threat of being beheaded if they displeased a king with their translation. What would be their motivation to continue the "lie" about the "real" purpose of baptism?
The Greek Orthodox translate "eis" in these verses as "for" or "unto" in their English bibles. Shouldn't the Greeks know best what the word "eis" means in these verses?
By what evidence can Baptists state that in all these verses "eis" should be translated as "because of"? The only manner I believe that this can be done is this: to start with a doctrinal position and then reinterpret verses that don't agree with your position, if necessary by claiming poor translation, claiming that there has been a conspiracy of all translators, for all translations, in all periods of history, to hide the true meaning of baptism: a baptism of public profession, not a baptism for repentance and the forgiveness of sins.
The Greek Orthodox translate "eis" in these verses as "for" or "unto" in their English bibles. Shouldn't the Greeks know best what the word "eis" means in these verses?
By what evidence can Baptists state that in all these verses "eis" should be translated as "because of"? The only manner I believe that this can be done is this: to start with a doctrinal position and then reinterpret verses that don't agree with your position, if necessary by claiming poor translation, claiming that there has been a conspiracy of all translators, for all translations, in all periods of history, to hide the true meaning of baptism: a baptism of public profession, not a baptism for repentance and the forgiveness of sins.
Wittenberger
New Member
I have been studying Matthew 3:11 and Luke 3:3 in an interlinear Greek/English Bible. Here is the Greek with the literal English translation of each:
Matt. 3:11
EgO men baptizo humas en hudati eis metanioan
I indeed baptize you in water into repentance
Luke 3:3
kErussOn baptisma metanoias eis aphesin hamartiOn
proclaiming baptism of repentance into pardon of sins
So in the verse in Matthew, if you translate "eis" as "because of" the sentence would still make sense: "I indeed baptize you in water because of repentance."
But what about the verse in Luke: " proclaiming baptism of repentance because of pardon of sins. It is still a baptism of repentance, not a baptism because of repentance, unless you wanted to radically re-translate the verse to this:
"proclaiming baptism because of repentance because of pardon of sins."
Does that make any sense??
Matt. 3:11
EgO men baptizo humas en hudati eis metanioan
I indeed baptize you in water into repentance
Luke 3:3
kErussOn baptisma metanoias eis aphesin hamartiOn
proclaiming baptism of repentance into pardon of sins
So in the verse in Matthew, if you translate "eis" as "because of" the sentence would still make sense: "I indeed baptize you in water because of repentance."
But what about the verse in Luke: " proclaiming baptism of repentance because of pardon of sins. It is still a baptism of repentance, not a baptism because of repentance, unless you wanted to radically re-translate the verse to this:
"proclaiming baptism because of repentance because of pardon of sins."
Does that make any sense??
Wittenberger
New Member
Brother Biblicist has stated above that the translators of the KJV cannot be trusted because they were all "paedobaptists".
But what about the translators of the English Standard Version (ESV). If you look at the link below there are many Baptists on the list of translators.
The ESV translates the Greek word "eis" in all the verses under discussion as "for"! Are these Baptists secret "paedobaptists"? Were they true credobaptists but were paid off by the paedobaptists to perpetuate the paedobaptist false translation and lies relating to baptism??
Here is the link that lists the ESV translators including several Baptists:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/esv-translators.html
But what about the translators of the English Standard Version (ESV). If you look at the link below there are many Baptists on the list of translators.
The ESV translates the Greek word "eis" in all the verses under discussion as "for"! Are these Baptists secret "paedobaptists"? Were they true credobaptists but were paid off by the paedobaptists to perpetuate the paedobaptist false translation and lies relating to baptism??
Here is the link that lists the ESV translators including several Baptists:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/esv-translators.html
Last edited by a moderator: