An Ongoing Study/Debate of the New Testament

[Michael Wrenn]

Surely you have not understood what I said??? Better read it again. What I said covers every dying child and every mentally deficint person dying - nothing could be more gracious and merciful.

However, the idea of infant baptism as the safety blanket for dying infants is cruel to the millions of infants that die in non-Christian cultures and among those Christians who reject infant baptism. EITHER IT BENEFITS or IT DOES NOT - you cannot have it both ways.



Surely you jest? Would you expect that doctrine from the records and selective materials of Paedobaptists????



You need to get out more! I never dreamed this up. First, there is a Biblical basis for it. Second, I have had professors in Bible college teach this. Third, you can find it in Baptist Theology books. Indeed one of the earliest and most comprehensive Baptist Theologogy books presents the basis for this view - A.H. Srong, Systematic Theology, pp. 661-664. There are other Baptist Theologians and Theologies that teach the same basic premises You can find it in early Baptist Associational minutes and writings.

However, does that really matter to you anyway?????

See the bolded part: You have that right. If a person really believes that throwing water on an baby, or dunking a baby, will save it from hell, that person had better set out to apply that water to every baby he sees!

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Here is the next passage of Scripture in our study of the New Testament:


Mark 1:4-5
English Standard Version (ESV)

4 John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. 5 And all the country of Judea and all Jerusalem were going out to him and were being baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.

I'm going to beat Brother Biblicist to the punch on this one:

These verses in Mark are yet another twisted, purposefully mistranslated passage of Scripture by the coniving paedobaptists! They have really out-down themselves here. In Matthew chapter 3 they falsly referred to John's baptism as a baptism FOR repentance, but here they go even further: They refer to John's baptism as "a baptism OF repentance FOR the forgiveness of sins!"

What an outrage!

We all now know, thanks to Brother Biblicist, that what these verses should really say is this: "a baptism because of repentance because of the forgiveness of sins".

Thank goodness we have Brother Biblicist and his excellent knowledge of the Greek language to guide us to the true Word of God!

Let an English linguist assist you:

The way the sentence is constructed, the forgiveness of sins is brought about by repentance, not by baptism; therefore, baptism is a sign-symbol and public testimony of that fact.

Clear now?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Let an English linguist assist you:

The way the sentence is constructed, the forgiveness of sins is brought about by repentance, not by baptism; therefore, baptism is a sign-symbol and public testimony of that fact.

Clear now?

I kind of disagree with you. The sentence construction shows John was providing the baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. Clearly Baptism is in conjuction with repentance. Ie one is not baptized saved they repented but repentance and baptism are placed as a singular object for the specific purpose of having ones sins forgiven.

 

[The Biblicist]

Here is the next passage of Scripture in our study of the New Testament:


Mark 1:4-5
English Standard Version (ESV)

4 John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. 5 And all the country of Judea and all Jerusalem were going out to him and were being baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.

Matthew 3:8-11 make it very clear that "baptism of repentance" cannot have any other meaning then immersion is due to repentance as John demanded the "fruits of repentance" PRIOR TO administering baptism.

Hence, baptism is for the repentant only. That "fruit" of repentance was manifested in their confession of sins - confession of sins is fruit of a repentant heart.

Again, the logical order is that John first preached the gospel to the crowd - the gospel he himself defines in John 3:36. The crowd that received his gospel responded by lining up to be baptized by him. As they came to him they made this public confession of their previous response to the gospel and based upon that manifest fruit - he administered baptism. This is the very same practice as Baptists do to this very day.

Hence, we know that "for" repentance cannot have any other meaning in regard to the baptism of John than because of as repentance ALWAYS precedes baptism whenever it is joined with baptism in every other place in scripture the order is repent/beleive and be baptized. This fact cannot be disputed if the evidence is objectively weighed and accepted.

Now we come to the words "for the remission of sins" and the issue is whether God remits sins due to repentance or due to the administration of an external ordinance or due to the combination.

I believe the overall Biblical context is that literal remission of sins ALWAYS occurs at the point of repentant faith in the gospel (Acts 10:43) but ordinances provide an external sign of what the candidate already "had" literally received previous to the submission to the ordinance (Rom. 4:6-11). Paul makes this clear that this is the UNIVERSAL truth for all who are of faith.

Thus baptism does remit sins, saves, regenerates symbolically (as did circumcision in the example of Abraham) but it is at the point of regenerative/repentant/faith in the gospel that literally remission of sins occurs. I believe that Paul's theological exposition on this very point in Romans 4:5-11 cannot be successfully overturned and that it is expressly applied UNIVERSALLY to Old and New Testament saints or ALL WHO ARE OF FAITH.

 

[Wittenberger]

See the bolded part: You have that right. If a person really believes that throwing water on an baby, or dunking a baby, will save it from hell, that person had better set out to apply that water to every baby he sees!

The Apostle Peter in Acts 2:38-40 did not say "For the promise is to you and ALL children..."

He said, "for the promise is to you and YOUR children..."

 

[The Biblicist]

The Apostle Peter in Acts 2:38-40 did not say "For the promise is to you and ALL children..."

He said, "for the promise is to you and YOUR children..."

He is talking to JEWS and their JEWISH children because the sign gifts (tongues; etc.) of the Spirit were made available through the new house of God which repentant believers are "added to" (Acts 2:40) through water baptism and then received through the laying on of apostolic hands.

 

[Wittenberger]

Matthew 3:8-11 make it very clear that "baptism of repentance" cannot have any other meaning then immersion is due to repentance as John demanded the "fruits of repentance" PRIOR TO administering baptism.

Hence, baptism is for the repentant only. That "fruit" of repentance was manifested in their confession of sins - confession of sins is fruit of a repentant heart.

Again, the logical order is that John first preached the gospel to the crowd - the gospel he himself defines in John 3:36. The crowd that received his gospel responded by lining up to be baptized by him. As they came to him they made this public confession of their previous response to the gospel and based upon that manifest fruit - he administered baptism. This is the very same practice as Baptists do to this very day.

Hence, we know that "for" repentance cannot have any other meaning in regard to the baptism of John than because of as repentance ALWAYS precedes baptism whenever it is joined with baptism in every other place in scripture the order is repent/beleive and be baptized. This fact cannot be disputed if the evidence is objectively weighed and accepted.

Now we come to the words "for the remission of sins" and the issue is whether God remits sins due to repentance or due to the administration of an external ordinance or due to the combination.

I believe the overall Biblical context is that literal remission of sins ALWAYS occurs at the point of repentant faith in the gospel (Acts 10:43) but ordinances provide an external sign of what the candidate already "had" literally received previous to the submission to the ordinance (Rom. 4:6-11). Paul makes this clear that this is the UNIVERSAL truth for all who are of faith.

Thus baptism does remit sins, saves, regenerates symbolically (as did circumcision in the example of Abraham) but it is at the point of regenerative/repentant/faith in the gospel that literally remission of sins occurs. I believe that Paul's theological exposition on this very point in Romans 4:5-11 cannot be successfully overturned and that it is expressly applied UNIVERSALLY to Old and New Testament saints or ALL WHO ARE OF FAITH.

As I said before, thank goodness we have Brother Biblicist and his superior knowledge of Greek for us to finally learn the true Word of God!

All of our Bibles are riddled with paedobaptist mistranslations. Let's just put them up on the shelf and go to a purer source of God's Holy Word: Dr. Strong's Theological writings or the writings of other Baptist theologians.

The common man cannot trust the English Bible. But we can trust Baptist theologians, because Baptists have always held the truth since the Apostles and during their 1,500 years hiding out in yet undiscovered caves under Catholic persecution.

 

[Wittenberger]

He is talking to JEWS and their JEWISH children because the sign gifts (tongues; etc.) of the Spirit were made available through the new house of God which repentant believers are "added to" (Acts 2:40) through water baptism and then received through the laying on of apostolic hands.

What????

He is talking about repentance, baptism, and receiving the Holy Spirit!!!!

The crowd had just asked "what shall we do?". Peter is answering their question. You are really stretching things brother to make this passage be about Jewish children and speaking in tongues!!

Believe the simple, literal meaning of the Bible! Don't re-intepret it because it doesn't fit with your doctrine!

 

[Michael Wrenn]

The Apostle Peter in Acts 2:38-40 did not say "For the promise is to you and ALL children..."

He said, "for the promise is to you and YOUR children..."

And what does the last part of that verse say? I wonder why paedobaptists always leave that off? Hmmm....

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I kind of disagree with you. The sentence construction shows John was providing the baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. Clearly Baptism is in conjuction with repentance. Ie one is not baptized saved they repented but repentance and baptism are placed as a singular object for the specific purpose of having ones sins forgiven.

Well, we will have to agree to disagree. But it is good to be able to do so without a mutual questioning of each other's salvation.

 

[The Biblicist]

As I said before, thank goodness we have Brother Biblicist and his superior knowledge of Greek for us to finally learn the true Word of God!

For a moment I thought you might be sincere in what you said about seeking the truth but it is now clear that was merely pretense and your ridicule reveals your true character. I never ridiculed you or your statements but gave matter of fact answers. Fool me once, ok, fool me twice, I have learned but you won't fool me again. So, from this point forward, the gloves are off and I will treat you exactly as you are - a wolf in sheeps clothing. Forget about back peddling.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Well, we will have to agree to disagree. But it is good to be able to do so without a mutual questioning of each other's salvation.

Absolutely! I try to never judge whether another person is saved or not. The fact is that belongs in the provence of the Almighty. I can only look outwardly at people God looks at the heart of the person. And certainly there is biblical support for many people being suprised at the Judgement about who is admitted and who is not. However, I believe that God reveals himself in scripture and the Christian faith and salvation is also revealed and accessed by those sources. Those who are Christian I will view as being in the ark of salvation and treat them as family. Whether they will be admitted into eternity with him is up to God to decide but I know and trust him enough to know it will be a just and loving decision.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Absolutely! I try to never judge whether another person is saved or not. The fact is that belongs in the provence of the Almighty. I can only look outwardly at people God looks at the heart of the person. And certainly there is biblical support for many people being suprised at the Judgement about who is admitted and who is not. However, I believe that God reveals himself in scripture and the Christian faith and salvation is also revealed and accessed by those sources. Those who are Christian I will view as being in the ark of salvation and treat them as family. Whether they will be admitted into eternity with him is up to God to decide but I know and trust him enough to know it will be a just and loving decision.

Amen to that!

And I look forward to meeting you in heaven one day, if not here.

 

[Wittenberger]

And what does the last part of that verse say? I wonder why paedobaptists always leave that off? Hmmm....

I left it off because we are talking about "children".

Here is the whole verse: "For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself."

Let's dissect this verse:

What is the promise? Verse 33 tells us: the promise of the Holy Spirit

Who is "you"? The crowd of Jews and Jewish proselytes to whom Peter is speaking.

Who are "your children"? The children of the Jews and the Jewish proselytes to whom Peter is speaking.

Who are those that are "far off"? This term is used in several other locations of the NT referring to Gentiles.

So is the promise of the Holy Spirit to ALL Jews and Jewish proselytes and ALL their children and ALL Gentiles??

No: the promise is only for "everyone who the Lord our God calls to himself".
Only the Elect, those predestined and called by God, will receive the promise of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Wittenberger]

For a moment I thought you might be sincere in what you said about seeking the truth but it is now clear that was merely pretense and your ridicule reveals your true character. I never ridiculed you or your statements but gave matter of fact answers. Fool me once, ok, fool me twice, I have learned but you won't fool me again. So, from this point forward, the gloves are off and I will treat you exactly as you are - a wolf in sheeps clothing. Forget about back peddling.

I'm very sorry. I was trying to put a little humor into our discussion, but you are right, it was rude. I sincerely apologize. I will avoid this type of language in our future discussions. I am seeking the truth, but the only way I'm going to see if the Baptists are right is to give you my best "shots" from the Lutheran perspective.

I want your "gloves" off, though, brother. I want you to give my your best shot to knock down my beliefs. My Baptist family members refuse to debate me, so I am very appreciative of the opportunity to debate and study Scripture with a Baptist pastor.

 

[The Biblicist]

Absolutely! I try to never judge whether another person is saved or not.

It is against the rules of this forum to judge the personal salvation of another person. If that has been done it can be documented by their post - please report it to the moderator.

However, what you and Michael are doing is called "slander" by inferring that someone has done this when in fact it has not been done.

The truth is that the Scriptures clearly speaks of "another Jesus" and "another gospel" and such cannot save anyone. Both sides should obviously accept that any profession that was based upon what the scriptures call "another gospel" or "another Jesus" cannot possibly save anyone as it is not a matter of different langauge as both claim it is the "gospel" and both claim salvation in "Christ" but the meaning and application of such common language. The Mormon uses the same langauge in their profession of faith "I have trusted in Christ as my Savior" but obviously defines the terms that promote different concepts.

Another obvious is that we both believe that we do not teach the same doctrine of salvation and one of us must be wrong as our views are contradictiory and yet we use the same terms. There are not TWO ways of savlation, TWO gospels and thus at least one of us is wrong and IF our profession of faith was based upon the definitive gospel we are now both presenting then someone is lost regardless of profession.

OR

As I have stated about both you and Michael that you may both be saved but led astray. However, will you both concede that MAY be my condition as well in spite of repudiating the gospel I not only base my salvation upon but am defending???

HOWEVER

I do base my whole salvation and eternal future on the gospel I am defending. So how can you possibly accept that I am saved if no other doctrine of salvation has been embraced but the one I am defending?

CONCLUSIVELY

My position toward you is far more generous than the position you must embrace toward me since my defense does indeed match my profession of salvation.

 

[Wittenberger]

It is against the rules of this forum to judge the personal salvation of another person. If that has been done it can be documented by their post - please report it to the moderator.

However, what you and Michael are doing is called "slander" by inferring that someone has done this when in fact it has not been done.

The truth is that the Scriptures clearly speaks of "another Jesus" and "another gospel" and such cannot save anyone. Both sides should obviously accept that any profession that was based upon what the scriptures call "another gospel" or "another Jesus" cannot possibly save anyone as it is not a matter of different langauge as both claim it is the "gospel" and both claim salvation in "Christ" but the meaning and application of such common language. The Mormon uses the same langauge in their profession of faith "I have trusted in Christ as my Savior" but obviously defines the terms that promote different concepts.

Another obvious is that we both believe that we do not teach the same doctrine of salvation and one of us must be wrong as our views are contradictiory and yet we use the same terms. There are not TWO ways of savlation, TWO gospels and thus at least one of us is wrong and IF our profession of faith was based upon the definitive gospel we are now both presenting then someone is lost regardless of profession.

OR

As I have stated about both you and Michael that you may both be saved but led astray. However, will you both concede that MAY be my condition as well in spite of repudiating the gospel I not only base my salvation upon but am defending???

HOWEVER

I do base my whole salvation and eternal future on the gospel I am defending. So how can you possibly accept that I am saved if no other doctrine of salvation has been embraced but the one I am defending?

CONCLUSIVELY

My position toward you is far more generous than the position you must embrace toward me since my defense does indeed match my profession of salvation.

I have never seen you tell another member on the BB that they are not saved, but you do use descriptive language that insinuates your real feelings: "wolf in sheep's clothing".

We all should be more careful with our choice of words. Again I apologize to you for attempting humor that came across as demeaning ridicule. It was inappropriate and wrong.

 

[Wittenberger]

Next Passage in our ongoing Study:



Mark 1:8-11
English Standard Version (ESV)


8 I have baptized you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”

The Baptism of Jesus

9 In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10 And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. 11 And a voice came from heaven, “You are my beloved Son;[a] with you I am well pleased.”

Footnotes:a.Mark 1:11 Or my Son, my (or the) Beloved


This is Mark's account of Christ's baptism. Again, I think the wording indicates that Christ was immersed. It is interesting to me that in verse 8 there is no mention of "fire" as there was in Matthew.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

However, what you and Michael are doing is called "slander" by inferring that someone has done this when in fact it has not been done.

Not true I haven't inferred that some one has done this. I just stated my position on not doing so. Not just in this forum but in my life in general. I take this approach to all I meet. Thus I don't go around condemning Protestants to hell fire because they disagree with me about doctrine but I see them as family members with whom I disagree about some issues. But I fully expect to see them in heaven but once again I leave that decision up to God. That all I said. And as far as the other post where I said something to the effect you may see me as not saved because... I wasn't suggesting You thought I wasn't saved but to point out a specific point on the doctrine we were discussing. Thus a man may say I'm saved if I believe in Jesus but even believing in Jesus "you" or that hypothetical man don't really believe that is sufficient enough for me to be saved but I must have specifically the belief perameters you or they impose.

So I believe you are a bit off base with your post.

 

[The Biblicist]

Thus a man may say I'm saved if I believe in Jesus but even believing in Jesus "you" or that hypothetical man don't really believe that is sufficient enough for me to be saved but I must have specifically the belief perameters you or they impose.

So I believe you are a bit off base with your post.

If you don't believe in universal salvation then not all men are saved. If you accept the fact the scriptures teach there some preach "another gospel" and "another Jesus" then you must accept the fact there are converts to that gospel and Jesus who THINK they are saved but in fact are placing their trust, no matter how sincerely, in something that cannot save.

For example, I have met some extremely nice and sincere Mormons and JW's who confess "I believe in Christ as my Savior" but when they explain their Christ, he in no way remembles the Christ of Scripture. When they explain their "salvation", their "gospel" their "saved" their "grace" it does not resemblance anything in scripture although the same terms are used to express both their profession and my profession.

The SAME is true in regard to Roman Catholicism and the Baptist profession - same terms but entirely different meanings. Their "gospel" is not my "gospel" and their "Jesus" is not my Jesus and their "salvation" and "saved" is not my "salvation" and "Saved."

If you accept the fact of "tares" in the kingdom (Mt. 13) then you must accept the fact of false professors.