Water and Blood

Only the blood of Jesus can wash away sins. How do we come in contact with the blood? Oh that is the question. What do the scriptures say? Where did his blood flow? At his death? Romans 6:4 says that we are baptized into his death. Lets go another route. Heb 9:22 says that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. I know we all agree on that point. Acts 2:38 says that baptism is for the remission of sins, again tying baptism to the blood and remission of sins. Eph 1:7 says "In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace". In whom? Christ. How do we get into Christ? Again, back to baptism (Rom 6:3-4, Gal 3:27). But someone may say, baptism is a work and we are saved by faith. We are saved by faith, no argument. Most people don't understand biblical faith. Read Gal 3:26-27. It says we are childern of God by faith because we have been baptized INTO Christ. Lets go another route, what else did Jesus' blood do? It purchased the church, according to Acts 20:28. Christ is savior of the body (Eph 5:23) which is the church (Eph 1:22-23, Col 1:18). How do we get INTO the church? We are baptized into the church (I Cor 12:13). Christ adds to the church those who are being saved (Acts 2:47). Baptism adds us the the church, I don't think we have disagreement on this point, but I'm not sure. When Philip taught the Eunuch, he preached Jesus which included water baptism (Acts 8:35-36). See how nicely this all ties together. Baptism washes away our sins. Isn't that exactly what Saul was told to do after believing and praying for 3 days,"And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord Acts 22:16." Why did this believer have sins to be washed away after 3 days of praying? Only because he had not come in contact with the blood of Christ. You see, it is not the water, but the blood of Jesus. Not because God owes us anything or we earn anything in baptism, but by our faithful obedience. You cannot lay out a logical explaination using scriptures of how we come in contact with the blood, how we get into Christ, or how we get into the Church without mentioning baptism. Did you ever wonder why blood and water came forth from Jesus' side (John 19:34). The Spirit, water and blood all agree as one according to I John 5:8. On the day of Pentecost, the spirit was talking though Peter (ACts 2:4). Acts 2:38 Then Peter (Spirit - talking though Peter) said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized (water) in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins (blood - see also Matt 26:28); and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Here we have the Spirit, water and blood all agreeing.

We are saved by grace through faith, how wonderful.

mman,

bmerr here. Very nicely said, sir. I only recently made (or was reminded of) the connection made between the water and blood in 1 John 5:8.

There may be another connection between water and blood, but I want to check it out before I suggest it.

In the future you may try breaking up your posts into paragraphs, double-spacing between them. It makes them easier to read.

Again, well done, sir.

In Christ,

bmerr

Ac 2:21
And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Ro 10:9
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Ro 10:10
For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Peter and Paul both preached the exact same message. Believe and ye shall be saved. Just Call Upon His Name. Not "go swimming".

I always am amazed by the Acts 2:28 folks. They inevitably skim right over Acts 2:21.

In HIS service;
Jim

av1611jim,

You know, I have tried to make that Acts 2:21 connection myself, but to be honest, it is a pretty high level statement. Just like whoever professes that Jesus Christ is Lord shall be saved. Well is that how we do our invitation calls in Church? "Ok, everybody who would like to be saved, just say outloud that Jesus Christ is Lord, and you will go to heaven. Uhhh..No. It is a statement, not the procedure.

Acts 2:21 is a statement of truth. HOW we call upon the Lord for salvation is the real question. Acts 2:38 is pretty clear on the how and the text is hard to refute. Just to be honest.

However, we know that somehow these people must have been saved at that moment. I think based on a lot of early history, that we are missing a full description of the rite. I am sure they confessed Jesus at baptism, it just isn't in the text. I am brave enough to admit, what I am saying is not in the text, but it is implied because that is how I believe recapitualtion happens.

Baptism was a symbol of the washing away of sins that ooccurred when people called on the name of the Lord; which was done durung the baptism. So that is why Baptism is made so essential. In most churches today, the altar call has taken its place. You can see this discussed here.

Originally posted by av1611jim:
Ac 2:21
And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Ro 10:9
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Ro 10:10
For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Peter and Paul both preached the exact same message. Believe and ye shall be saved. Just Call Upon His Name. Not "go swimming".

I always am amazed by the Acts 2:28 folks. They inevitably skim right over Acts 2:21.

In HIS service;
Jim

Click to expand...

-----------------------------

Yes I agree, Peter and Paul preached the same message. Those verses you listed are true, no question. They are in complete agreement with everything I have written. We even have a real example of someone calling on the name of the Lord. It's found in Acts 22:16. One verse never negates another. But to have the whole truth, we need to see all that God has said and follow that, not hold on to one verse and exclude all others.

Originally posted by chadman:
av1611jim,

You know, I have tried to make that Acts 2:21 connection myself, but to be honest, it is a pretty high level statement. Just like whoever professes that Jesus Christ is Lord shall be saved. Well is that how we do our invitation calls in Church? "Ok, everybody who would like to be saved, just say outloud that Jesus Christ is Lord, and you will go to heaven. Uhhh..No. It is a statement, not the procedure.

Acts 2:21 is a statement of truth. HOW we call upon the Lord for salvation is the real question. Acts 2:38 is pretty clear on the how and the text is hard to refute. Just to be honest.

However, we know that somehow these people must have been saved at that moment. I think based on a lot of early history, that we are missing a full description of the rite. I am sure they confessed Jesus at baptism, it just isn't in the text. I am brave enough to admit, what I am saying is not in the text, but it is implied because that is how I believe recapitualtion happens.

Click to expand...

-------------------------

Acts 2:21 - AND IT SHALL BE THAT EVERYONE WHO CALLS ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED.

Mark 16:16 - He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.

Are these two passages in conflict or complimentary?

If we read Acts 22:16 they fit together perfectly.

Acts 22:16 - And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

With this in mind Acts 2:21 and Acts 2:38 fit perfectly together and are complimentary not contradictory.

With all that is written above in the first message, at baptism (which is for the remission of sins and not because our sins have been forgiven) we come into contact with the blood that washes away our sins, puts us into Christ, and the Lord adds us to His church.

I guess Jim will not be amazed by you Mman. You obviously have not skimmed over Acts 2:21, yet make a strong case for the context of the actual text itself in your particular context.

So Jim, lol, be not amazed.

However Mman, we as Evangies, KNOW that there is more there than the text. I mean Jim has a point. The real point he is making is that baptism is not a sacrament. It holds no special forgiving power, regardless of what Acts 2:38 says in a literal fashion. So therefore, they had to have asked Jesus into their lives or believed on Him before the water baptism. They surely were already forgiven, it just doesn't use those words.

Passages by Paul later describing his baptism don't really help our case much either, expecially in reference to Acts 2:38, but we all have our crosses to bear.

At least I am honest. We all have to wrestle the NT to fit all of our theological systemic beliefs to some degree. This is one, I at least admit, is where we have to not be literal to the text.

Originally posted by chadman:
I guess Jim will not be amazed by you Mman. You obviously have not skimmed over Acts 2:21, yet make a strong case for the context of the actual text itself in your particular context.

So Jim, lol, be not amazed.

However Mman, we as Evangies, KNOW that there is more there than the text. I mean Jim has a point. The real point he is making is that baptism is not a sacrament. It holds no special forgiving power, regardless of what Acts 2:38 says in a literal fashion. So therefore, they had to have asked Jesus into their lives or believed on Him before the water baptism. They surely were already forgiven, it just doesn't use those words.

Passages by Paul later describing his baptism don't really help our case much either, expecially in reference to Acts 2:38, but we all have our crosses to bear.

At least I am honest. We all have to wrestle the NT to fit all of our theological systemic beliefs to some degree. This is one, I at least admit, is where we have to not be literal to the text.

Click to expand...

Chadman,

Baptism is either for the remission of sins or it isn't.

If baptism is for the remission of sins, then Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, Rom 6:3-4, Gal 3:26-27 and I Pet 3:21 can be accepted without any twisting required. Read these passages, in their context, and remove all prior teaching, and what is the obvious conclusion for the purpose of baptism.

Now suppose that baptism is part of faith as stated in Gal 3:26-27 and Col 2:12. Now passages like Eph 2:8-10 are in perfect harmony with the baptism passages.

Now suppose that baptism is how we call on the name of the Lord as stated in Acts 22:16. Then they are in harmony with Acts 2:21 and Romans 10:13.

If baptism is not for the remission of sins, then you are required to do mental gymnastics of olympic caliber to explain away clear passages such as those listed above and twist them to fit.

Jesus said, in words so simple a 3rd grader can understand them, He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

Notice he did not say, He who believes and saved shall be baptized, but no doubt, many on this board believe and teach this anyway.

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Repent and Be baptized...for the remission of sins.

Suppose I were to buy a ticket to go to Chicago.
The stewardess says: Present your ticket, and be seateed...arriving at Chicago in due time.

Suppose I do not sit all the way (have to go to the washroom, and must get up).
Suppose I am completely disobedient and stand all the way.
Will I still get to Chicago? What is the one thing that will get me to Chicago? Is it the sitting or is it the ticket?
Very evidently it is the ticket. My ticket is the only thing that can get me to Chicago. There is only one way to Chicago, and that is via the proper ticket. No other way will do, disobedience nothwithstanding.

There is only one way to Heaven. Jesus is that ticket. He says Repent and be baptized. Repentance is absoultely necessary. Baptism is obedience, but not absolutely necessary to get to heaven. The construction of the statement is the same as in the example above. If I disobey in the latter clause it doesn't mean I won't get there. I will still get to heaven. I have the ticket. Jesus gave it to me when I accepted it as his free gift. It is in my possession and no man can take it from me (John 10:27-30). The price of the ticket has been paid and that is all that matters. Baptism is irrelevant, as far as sallvation is concerned.
DHK

Originally posted by DHK:
Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Repent and Be baptized...for the remission of sins.

Suppose I were to buy a ticket to go to Chicago.
The stewardess says: Present your ticket, and be seateed...arriving at Chicago in due time.

Suppose I do not sit all the way (have to go to the washroom, and must get up).
Suppose I am completely disobedient and stand all the way.
Will I still get to Chicago? What is the one thing that will get me to Chicago? Is it the sitting or is it the ticket?
Very evidently it is the ticket. My ticket is the only thing that can get me to Chicago. There is only one way to Chicago, and that is via the proper ticket. No other way will do, disobedience nothwithstanding.

There is only one way to Heaven. Jesus is that ticket. He says Repent and be baptized. Repentance is absoultely necessary. Baptism is obedience, but not absolutely necessary to get to heaven. The construction of the statement is the same as in the example above. If I disobey in the latter clause it doesn't mean I won't get there. I will still get to heaven. I have the ticket. Jesus gave it to me when I accepted it as his free gift. It is in my possession and no man can take it from me (John 10:27-30). The price of the ticket has been paid and that is all that matters. Baptism is irrelevant, as far as sallvation is concerned.
DHK

Click to expand...

-----------------------------------------------
First there is at least one flaw in your logic. You have purchasing a ticket and getting on the train as the same event. OK, since we are making up stories, lets say that repentance to buying the ticket and baptism is getting on the train. Now will you get to Chicago if you don't get on the train?

Now, Let's say the train makes a stop in St. Louis where you are removed because you have broken every rule or you voluntarily leave because you think another train will be going your way. The one and only train bound for Chicago then leaves the station without you and you are stuck in St Louis. Did you get to Chicago?

Here is the simple fact. Baptism is for the remission of sins as stated in Acts 2:38. In fact, "for the remission of sins" is the exact greek phrase used in Matt 26:28 which states, "For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."

Question, was Jesus' blood shed because people already had remission of sins or so that people could have remission of sins?

Frist my illustration was with a plane, not a train. And no they don't kick you off a plane in mid-flight.
Neither does Jesus. Eternal life is eternal life. Words have meanings. If eternal life could end at any time it would not be eternal any longer but only temporary, and Christ would be found to be a liar.

Let's look at the verse carefully, this time involving the Greek.

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

The words "for" in Acts 2:38, and "unto" in Mat.3:11 are the same Greek word, "eis." They have the same meaning.
So, tell me: Did John baptize in order that the Pharisees might have repentance, or did he baptize because they had already repented? You tell me.

The same is true in Acts 2:38. The same word is used: "eis" The baptism was "because of" as it is in Mat.3:11. They had already repented therefore they were baptized. It was an accomplished fact.

Third. It is the blood and only the blood that can wash away sin. No other can do.

1 John 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
--This is indisputable.
DHK

If baptism is not for the remission of sins, then you are required to do mental gymnastics of olympic caliber to explain away clear passages such as those listed above and twist them to fit.

Jesus said, in words so simple a 3rd grader can understand them, He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

Click to expand...

Well, DHK says that we can clearly just believe (get our ticket), and not get baptized, and still get there. I'll agree, as I think any sytematically intellectual person would, that we do some Olympic style gymnasitcs to get our story to fit the text.

I think DHK says this, although he makes me a 'wee bit' uncomfortable with his black and white demeanor, because of the end of that verse which says, 'but he who does not beleive will be condemned.'

Subjectively, I say that because of this verse structure, maybe you can believe and not be babtized, although that is not what the text says. I can see objectively, if you don't believe, who in their right mind would follow through with baptism?!? So I would imagine to a Catholic or COC, this type of logic DHK or me uses, may seem ludicrous. I don't intellectually think that the author here is stating explicilty what DHK says, he obviously is not. DHK is deducing what the underlying meaning is here not based on sentence structure (I sure hope not), but on other principles understood in a 'faith without works' or sacraments theology.

What I find amazing, is how some here think the Catholics or whomever is on the side of Sacramental Baptism, does not read all of the Scriptures. It is pretty blatantly obvious they do. The real deal, is that when someone appears to 'interpret' said Scriptures differently, they somehow don't read all of the Bible.

Quite correct Chadman.
Justification by faith (and faith alone) is a theme which thunders through the Bible and is unavoidable. In another thread I gave an exposition of Eph.2:8,9 which none of these COCers cared to refute, but ignored, and changed the topic spouting off their favorite verses out of context as usual. They fail to deal with the hundreds of verses in the Bible that simply say:
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved."
That is the message of the Bible, repeated over and over again. Jesus repeated it many times. It is recorded in John 3:16 and John 14:6, two of the most popular verses of the Bible. But if they will not believe the words of Christ Himself, then there is not much hope of them believing anyone else.
DHK

DHK said:

Frist my illustration was with a plane, not a train. And no they don't kick you off a plane in mid-flight.
Neither does Jesus. Eternal life is eternal life. Words have meanings. If eternal life could end at any time it would not be eternal any longer but only temporary, and Christ would be found to be a liar.

Click to expand...

C'mon DHK, seriously, these type of metaphorical stories don't define theology, they can be twisted worse than the Scriptures. Example...'Oh, yes you can get taken off a plane in mid flight...they land early because you were acting up...so you don't get to your destination. Therefore you can lose your salvation." Silly really and these can be bantered back and forth forever.

DHK you also said

Third. It is the blood and only the blood that can wash away sin. No other can do.

Click to expand...

Well, now here is where you make a, I think,a logical error. I believe, correct me if I am wrong, that this is not a literal statement of what actually happens to you in salvation. You don't get blood all over you. His blood is the catalyst that allows what you ARE saved by, GRACE, to come into your life in a spiritual rebirth.

So then, the blood is the essence that allows the resulting substance, GRACE, for salvation. For we are SAVED BY GRACE.

The real question being discussed here as I understand the breakdown, is the CONDUIT of that saving grace. How does that saving grace make its way to our lives?

We say through a prayer. The sinnners prayer. Period. That is the conduit or 'rite of passage' to recapitulation.

The others say Baptism as a spiritual sacrament. That is the conduit in their understanding.

What is confounding is when you jump across defining terms and try to debate these guys down by comparing Blood to Water in baptism as a conclusion. That is is simply not what they or we are saying. You changed at the end to compare the essence with the conduit.

We are contrasting the conduit by which we have saving Grace manifested to us personally.

This is how your arguments seem slam dunk to you, but leave confusion sometimes. They have logic that leaves us scratching our heads. I hope I am not demeaning, as I agree with you, but we have to debate point for point to be clear.

DHK said

They fail to deal with the hundreds of verses in the Bible that simply say:
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved."
That is the message of the Bible, repeated over and over again. Jesus repeated it many times. It is recorded in John 3:16 and John 14:6, two of the most popular verses of the Bible. But if they will not believe the words of Christ Himself, then there is not much hope of them believing anyone else.

Click to expand...

Well I don't agree at all with that pretty limited and paranoid sentiment. I think you fail to be honest with yourself in realizing that so many non-Baptist, or non-evangelicals, read the whole Bible, and utterly believe what they read. It is clear even from this board, that these folks can articulate in writing, why they believe there is more to faith than thoughts and words only.

You and I may disagree with them, but you have honestly got to be deluding yourself not to see where the true differences are. They are in interpretation intermingled with history (the Bible is part of Christian history , btw). They don't define terms the same as you, therefore the Scriptures don't mean the same things. You honestly don't see that???

What does 'Call upon the name of the Lord' mean? You know that is subjective, and can be seen many ways depending on what theological model you are working from.

You simply have an Evangelical viewpoint, and others don't. Can't you accept that? If it makes you feel better inside to think they don't read or believe the whole Bible, then believe it. But don't kid yourself. They believe it fully and really.

Does it make you uncomfortable to know that in the end, our decision to be Evangelical is just a probability of being correct? Because thats what it is. A probability. Maybe that's uncomfortable, but it is the reality of today's reformed Churches. I can live with that.

Eph 2:8-9 is one of my favorite passages. I believe it with all my heart. I am so thankful that I do not have to earn my salvation, because I could not do enough good works in my lifetime to earn one moment in heaven.

I fully believe that with all my heart. I am so thankful for God's grace. Man cannot understand or comprehend the depths of His grace.

I am saved through faith. I believe that with all my heart also. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God, Rom 10:17. There is only one Faith according to Eph 4:5. Some will depart from the Faith by forbidding others to marry or commanding them to abstain from certain foods (I Tim 4). These are called doctrines of demons. Not because they don't believe in Jesus, but because the teaching is changed from the faith which was once delivered (Jude 3).

You see, the faith was once delivered. I am saved by obedience to the faith (Rom 16:25-26).

Biblical faith is doing what God said. Here is a biblical example of faith.

How can it be said that Noah prepared an ark by faith for the saving of his household (Heb 11:7)?

First, Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord (Gen 6:8). What did that grace do? Provided him instructions (Gen 6:13-21). What does God's grace do today? Provides instructions (Titus 2:11-12). God did not owe us anything, but because of His grace, he has provided instructions for ALL men.

Noah built the ark of gopherwood. Why, because God said to. If Noah had strayed from God's commands, he wouldn't have built the ark by faith.

Gen 6:22 tells us that Noah did all that God commanded him. What does the bible call that? In Heb 11:7, it calls it faith.

Biblical faith is doing what God has said, not just believing God. Noah did not sit on a rock and wait for God to build the ark. No, he did ALL that God commanded him and that, is biblical faith.

So, Noah recieved instructions by the grace of God and by faith prepared an ark for the saving of his household. Do you see how by grace he was saved though faith?

Yet 1 Pet 3:20 says that Noah was saved by water. How can this be? Is there a confict? Certainly not. God used water in the saving of Noah and his household. Did Noah earn this saving? No, of course not.

I Pet 3:21 says baptism saves us. You see how the saving of Noah is similar to our salvation? God has provided instructions by His grace and we do all that God has commanded us (Faith).

That is how Paul can say what he did in Gal 3:26-27 "For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ."

I am a child of God by faith (Gal 3:26). There is no question about that. Where does faith come from? The word of God (Rom 10:17).

Originally posted by chadman:

Does it make you uncomfortable to know that in the end, our decision to be Evangelical is just a probability of being correct? Because thats what it is. A probability. Maybe that's uncomfortable, but it is the reality of today's reformed Churches. I can live with that.

Click to expand...

Absolutely not.
There are no probabilities when it comes to the doctrine of salvation. It is clearly set forth in 1Cor.15:1-4, and further substantiated in hundreds of other verses. Either it is accepted or rejected. Paul writes that if any other gospel other than the one that he has given is preached than that person is accursed. So you had better be sure that your gospel is the right one. Christ died for your sins, was buried, and rose again the third day. He paid the penalty for your sin that you could never pay. He did so with his sacrifice. It was his blood that atoned for your sin. Either you accept that sacrifical death by faith or you reject it. There is no inbetween. This message I am 100% sure of. There is no doubt about it. Salvation is a gift of God offered to all who will accept it by faith. You have the choice to receive or reject. God will not force you to accept his free gift of salvation.
Neither is there any works such as baptism associated with it. It is all of grace. These things are made very plain to us in Scripture. Those that do not understand these things do not understand soteriology. Salvation is not a difficult doctrine to understand, and yet many refuse it anyway.
DHK

Originally posted by mman:

Biblical faith is doing what God said. Here is a biblical example of faith.

Click to expand...

Biblical faith is not doing at all. Doing is a work. Faith is not a work. That is why the COC have a works salvation which puts it in the realm of a cult. They believe tehy are going to heaven because of their works. They have a wrong definition of faith. Look up faith in a dictionary, preferably a Bible dictionary, or a Greek lexicon. Faith is not doing. Faith is believing. It is trusting. Faith is putting confidence in the Word of another.

Romans 4:19-21 And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sara's womb:
20 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;
21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.

Abraham was a man of faith. Faith is definned here. Abraham was confident. He was fully persuaded that what God had promised he was able to perform.
He had confidence in the word of another, specifically God's Word. That is faith. Faith is not doing. Faith is trust, confidence.
DHK

Originally posted by DHK:
Frist my illustration was with a plane, not a train. And no they don't kick you off a plane in mid-flight.
Neither does Jesus. Eternal life is eternal life. Words have meanings. If eternal life could end at any time it would not be eternal any longer but only temporary, and Christ would be found to be a liar.

Let's look at the verse carefully, this time involving the Greek.

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

The words "for" in Acts 2:38, and "unto" in Mat.3:11 are the same Greek word, "eis." They have the same meaning.
So, tell me: Did John baptize in order that the Pharisees might have repentance, or did he baptize because they had already repented? You tell me.

The same is true in Acts 2:38. The same word is used: "eis" The baptism was "because of" as it is in Mat.3:11. They had already repented therefore they were baptized. It was an accomplished fact.

Third. It is the blood and only the blood that can wash away sin. No other can do.

1 John 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
--This is indisputable.
DHK

Click to expand...

So basically what you are saying is that Jesus blood was shed because peoples sins were already forgiven? Is that correct? It not only uses the same word but SAME PHRASE.

John's baptism was a baptism unto the remission of sins.You say that John baptized people because of repentance. But Thayer on page 94 in his lexicon says, 'That the phrase 'eis metonoia', for repentance or unto repentance, is to mark the end, to bind one to repentance'. John's baptism was into the kind of life to which the people were obligated by their repentance. That's why he commanded them to bring forth fruit meet for repentance. Once again the eis points forward and not backwards.

With regards to the preposition eis,it is used about 1,600 times in the New Testament. It's rendered "into" 571 times, "to" 282 times, "toward" 32 times, "for" 91 times, "unto" 208 times, "in" 131 times and never once "because" or "with reference to".

Now if you wish to deny that the remission of sins in Acts 2:38 expresses the purpose of the baptism or that it should read, 'Be baptized because your sins have already been forgiven' or something like that, please show me a single translation to prove it. Acts 2:38 as it stands in your Bible is backed by the responsible scholarship of the centuries and the meaning is so plain that I believe that a child could understand it.