Water and Blood

chadman · May 20, 2005

mman said:

Chadman, I would not have used those words, but that is not too far off. For clarificaiton, the power is in the blood, not in the water. Jesus said in John 3:5, "Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Also stated in I Cor 12:13, "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body,". The body is the Church (Eph 1:22-23, Col 1:18).

Logistics, logistics...what I mean, is that you are baptized in water not blood. You know, the actual Rite of Baptism. In that act of faith, you are saying you are born again right? Not by the work, but rather, the act of faith in baptism, and the rebirth is the work of God during the immediate act? BTW, what words would you use to clarify?

I have no idea what the RCC teaches concerning baptism. I know they baptize infants, who can not believe, repent, or confess which is certainly contrary to examples and instruction in scripture.

Well now, they also baptize adults, just like you guys do, when a lost person wants to be a Christian. And how can you have NO IDEA what they teach? This stuff is all over this forum?!? You haven't seen some of their posts? Surely, a COC person would check out what they teach regarding baptism, since what you guys teach seems pretty darn close, at least regarding adults. Why not go to the source? You guys didn't come up with this interpretation in a vaccum certainly. Don't you COC guys and RCC guys say the same things when looking at Scriptures on Baptism? (hint...'yes')

You guys may be Protestant, but you sound Catholic on baptism.

chadman · May 20, 2005

Hey DHK,

I am really curious about the usage of 'EIS' as you and mman were discussing it. How do we reconcile what he was saying?

Eric B · May 20, 2005

Well I agree most people, those on this forum more than normal, break all the pieces of the Bible up to get it to fit the 'gospel' theology they have been taught. I won't disagree here, just read any of these posts carefully.

Here is one sincere observation above all others I have seen on this board.

Many of us Evangelicals simply refuse to believe what our non-evangelical brothers are saying that they believe. Then we pound them with the same ol arguments hoping it will somehow 'sink in' without 'dealing' with what they have told us they really believe. It is simply to traumatic to our frail confidence in our interpretations, to believe that anyobdy could possibly know what we know, and honestly have a different interpretation. A ghastly thought!

This is an objective raw observation that surely others would agree to if they were honest.

Another observation I see here, is a complete arrogance in some, not personally distinguishing or acknowledging between their Interpretation and the Bible as it stands apart from their interpretation. They speak as if their Interpretation IS the Bible.

There is simply, from a educated intellectual standpoint, no credibility to such folks who make these type of assumptions, even if they are blind to them. They come across as hard, inflexible, unreasonable, and frankly inept, hopefully by intentional design, and not by sheer ignorance to the situation. Because unfortunately, if the latter case, then apptitude can be impossible to penetrate with sound reason.

I am really not here to hack on my own brothers in Christ. But folks, there is somewhat of a serious problem here, when we cannot acknowledge even that our own sytematic theologies are based on subjective interpretation. Unless Jesus or the twelve Apostles themselves handed it to us in person and tutored us on every book, then what we have now, is a subjective interpretation. No matter how true or pure that interpretation may be, it is that very thing. An interpretation. Which when coupled with our current splintered versions of what the gospel really is, makes our intpretations ultimately a probablity among many instances of the same.

I'm open to reexamining widely held beliefs, but in a case like this, I'm sorry, but salvation can not be granted or denied based on a work. If we accept that, it opens up a whole pandora's box. As I said above, where is the line drawn then? Nobody obeys perfectly, and God's standard is perfection. So then there is no mroe assurance of salvation, and then no good news. Who then knows who will finally "make it"? (this is the way many Catholics live, and then many give up and go the opposite direction of living how they please and just hoping their good outweighs their bad.) Or, we have to be presumptuous, and think we are doing good enough. Just be baptized, join the true Church, and focus on a few other "commands". But even still, man always misses things. We end up bringing God's standard of perfection down.
Sorry, but works-salvation (including renaming "works" as "faith") just does not fit the Gospel.

Hey Eric, they guy is COC, so is it possible he believes that during the commanded act to be baptized (in his view baptism is not man work but Gods work), Being taken into the water in obedience, that at that moment, and having faith in Christ, that he is spiritually baptized while in the water, the two being perhaps inextricably linked? This would make every verse of baptism, faith, works, and all the texts fit together without trying to use 'eis' in multiple modes in his view.

they were closely linked, but I showed above where someone was baptized without yet receiving the Spirit, and today, most people are not baptized ont he spot. CofC member Frank is the only one who says he does (and I don't see how he is able to always do it). So we cannot hold salvation off for a convert until they are able to he baptized, or until they are fully taught all the doctrines. The act of going into the water is man's work, and it's the spiritual immersing into Christ that is God's work. God does not lift anyone up and dunk them into the water.

Just an overservation and thought...Isn't that sort of what Catholics believe?

It has always been hard for me as a Baptist to explain deeply what is happening, but I like the work recapitulation when describing a person recieveing Christ, being reborn. We say it happens in the very midst of a prayer of faith, calling on Jesus in an instant in time.

So then, the COC or RCC, they believe this very same thing happens during the very act of water baptism? This does not seem difficult to comprehend what they are saying they believe. If that is in fact, what they are saying, I don't fully know.

I have no idea what the RCC teaches concerning baptism. I know they baptize infants, who can not believe, repent, or confess which is certainly contrary to examples and instruction in scripture.

With the exception of infant baptism, it is exactly what the RCC teaches. They go to the next logical step and do the same type of thing with Communion.

Is there anything I could really say or show you to change your mind?

You say you've proved it was not water baptism. I'm sorry, I have missed the proof.

I don't remember saying "it was not water baptism". What I did prove was that water baptism plus spirit baptism did not equal TWO separate "baptisms", supposedly proving your idea that water baptism and not spirit baptism is what saves. If that was true, then once again, in Acts 8, the Spirit would not have been necessary.

I Pet 3:21 is clearly water baptism. If it is not water baptism, then his whole example of Noah is meaningless. The last word in verse 20 is water.

I Pet 3:21, "There is also an antitype which now saves us--baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,"

Antitype of what? His example he just gave how Noah was saved through water.

What is an antitype? If you walk in the sand, how does you foot compare to the footprint left in the sand? One is the type, the other is the antitype.

Noah was saved though water (How?, By faith he did what God said and was saved (Heb 11:7)) His was a physical saving. There is an antitype that saves us, immersion. There is no cleansing power of the water itself, it is knowing that you are obeying God.

Obedience comes from the heart. We are to do whatever God tells us, whether it is baptism or anything else. So He told them to be baptized and they were, just as He told Noah to build an ark, and he did. It is not the work done that saves, as we still do not do anything perfectly or consistently. With all these counter accusations of people just being stubborn or whatever, no one is addressing this point. So in whatever means God tells us to obey, it is the faith in God that leads us to obey in the first place, that saves, not whatever we may do. So the altar call has sort of taken place of baptism as the public confession of Christ. I know God did not authorize that, but then we do not go and say people are not saved because they weren't baptized to make up for it.
The antitype of a physical act of salvation is not going to be another physical act. IT is the spiritual immersion into Christ, and water was retained to symbolize it.

Rom 6 is talking about immersion also. It is a burial and resurrection. One cannot be buried in the spirit then raised out of the spirit in which they were immersed. In verse 17, they had obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine. What form? As described in vs 3-4, the death burial and resurrection and this was done in baptism.

I already explained this a few times. A person is immersed into the Body of Christ. At the same time, the old man dies, and a new man (regenerate) arises. The water was to symbolize this. You are trying to force the analogies to be completely exact (there must be a literal "going down" and "rising up" of the person), but this is multifaceted. While immersion into Christ is one way, still, there is at the same time a death of the old person and rise of the new. Two separate analogies; ONE baptism!

chadman · May 20, 2005

ERICB said

I'm open to reexamining widely held beliefs, but in a case like this, I'm sorry, but salvation can not be granted or denied based on a work. If we accept that, it opens up a whole pandora's box.

I can understand that postition. But I think you are missing one key thing here. LISTEN to what they are saying. They don't believe in a works salvation. You may ask, "Then what pray tell, if they are sincere, could they possibly believe regarding works???" Right? They are saying it over and over.

I have have argued until blue in the face with very well versed Catholics (at least on Salvaiton, not other stuff). I am convinced they absolutely in their theology do not believe that works save them. Hey hear me out. They believe the same thing we believe. That GRACE saves you.

The divergence is pretty clear once we understand what they are saying. How do we get to that saveing GRACE? Ah...FAITH of course.

And hence, the REAL difference. The very definition of FAITH. And this is what I, through HOURS of intense discussions with some of these folks, have come to understand that they believe regarding salvation of works. (Note - And when in person, it is so much easier than on these board, because you can keep asking about one aspect without others banging in on your line of thought. Something that could takes weeks on a forum, or maybe never.)

They believe that Faith is a muti-component thing. That saving faith contains, both mental ascent, and action. Much like James 2 talks about. They believe work are a component of faith. See that is key to beginning to understand HOW they THINK.

Their own theology states, that Works, DO NOT have saving *MERIT*. This is not a play on words, they really believe this stuff.

It is WE Evangelicals, that all too often, refuse to believe that they believe this. And rather than accepting this, and simply agreeing to disagree, we CHARGE them with a doctrine they themselves don't actually teach. Namely, that a man can be saved by works. They just don't teach it that way, when you break down their theology.

This, in and of itself is not so bad, but just hampers true, comprehensive, and clear communication with others of differing theologies.

Remember, we Evangelicals are so very much more black and white in our usage and definition of terms. You have to understand what they MEAN when they say certain phrases or words.

We want to understnad the essence of what they are saying, which takes very careful discussion and listening.

Before you guys hack me to death now...one more thing. We have all met the unlearned Catholic, who seem to think if they do good works, they will go to heaven. That is entirely another issue. Because I have discovered that the Catholics, in their teaching to the masses, focus on HOW to live a Christian life, over the deeper theology.

This brings up other questions of course, namely, can a person be saved if they have faith in Christ, but think about the theology of it incorrectly. Think about that question a while. It also applies to us Fundamentalists too. Too much to cover here.

I'll close with a summary. We at times, simply refuse to acknowledge what these guys tell us they believe. And hense, we will never deal with the real issues that divide us all. We will listen for a key word or phrase, and then dump our version with verses to back it all up, and then tell them what they REALLY believe.

Eric B · May 20, 2005

Basically, they all SAY they believe in salvation by grace through faith. Problem is, they REDEFINE "faith" as works ("Baptism IS faith"), and then, "grace" becomes simply the providing of a set of intructions on works that we are to do to be saved. That would fit--IF we could actually carry out God's instructions perfect enough to merit salvation. The entire OT record shows that no one can. So the "grace" we need is not a new set of laws, but rather salvation by faith in what Christ did for us. Any works of obedience are a reaction of love (1 John 4:9-5:3), not to be saved. They are done done in faith, (and therefore can be called "Acts of faith") but they do not themselves BECOME the faith that saves.

DHK · May 20, 2005

Originally posted by chadman:
Hey DHK,

I am really curious about the usage of 'EIS' as you and mman were discussing it. How do we reconcile what he was saying?

The greeks had a word for because, "hoti". This word was NOT used in Acts 2:38. The greek word "eis" was used which never is translated as "because", since is does not mean "because". Just because our english word "for" can sometimes be used for "because" doesn't mean the greek word "eis" can.

Because the Holy Spirit chose to use the word "eis" and I don't argue with the Holy Spirit. The word "eis" is the word used in the manuscripts and that is the one in contention, thus that is the one we must deal with, not "hoti." As has already been noted, eis has is a very common preposition, has been used to mean "on account of" or "because of" as well as a variety of other meanings. It is more commonly used than "hoti."

If you can easily understand "eis" in Matt 26:28, why is it so hard to understand in Acts 2:38. Not only is the same word used but the SAME PHRASE. Every example showing how our english word "for" can mean "because" to attempt to show that baptism is because we have remission of sin (Acts 2:38) can also be used in Matt 26:28 to show that Jesus blood was shed because mankind had already received remission of sins. It is a very incosistent position unsupported by the greek language.

Click to expand...

Water and baptism are very different.
Matthew 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
--The most common meaning of eis is into or unto. Does eis make sense here with that interpretation? Was his blood shed for mnay intothe remission of sins? You can't have it both ways. You want specific definitions for your theology, only to fit when it fits your theology and not the rest of the Bible. The Bible harmonizes together, not contradicts each other.
Scripture must harmonize:
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.
--Water does not wash away sin, but the blood of Jesus does. The preposition eis, therefore means "in order that"

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.

This line of reasining I gave you before. It should be evident that eis has more than one meaning; that it is used in the sense of "because of" in Mat.3:11, and in other places. That is exactly what the word "fur" means--because of. John baptized because they had repented of their sins, and for no other reason.

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.

Click to expand...

You never did make much sense with this point.
--for repentance, unto repentance, because of their repentance. It all meant the same thing didn't it. The end result was that John would not baptize them until they brought proof that they had repented. The same is true in Acts 2:38. Peter would no baptize an unregenerated person. They would have had to be saved first. Or do you believe that Peter was baptizing unsaved individuals? No. Their sins had already been washed away.

So exactly what did John mean when he said: "Bring forth fruits meet for repentance." Are you still suggesting that John's baptism (as Peter's baptism) would give them remisssion of sins). Why then did they have to bring forth the evidence of their repentance? Their fruit of repentance was brought forth because they had already repented. How much more obvious can it be.

Point already made.

: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".

Click to expand...

No, the word "for" is used instead. The translators avoided all the verbose language that you would use. They used a simple three letter word, and hoped that you would understand the English language.

Go to the store and buy some ice cream for supper.
Does for = "because of supper"
"on account of supper"
or "in order to receive supper"

Your option would be the latter, and yet I don't have to buy ice cream in order to receive supper. That is ridiculous. We use the word "for" "eis" in this way all the time. You are simply forcing your odd definition of it into this verse to fit your theology.

: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.

Click to expand...

"for the remission of sins"

:This does not mean in order that sins might be remitted, for everywhere in the New Testament sins are forgiven as a result of faith in Christ, not as a result of baptism. It means be baptized because of the remission of sins. The Greek preposition eis, for, has the meaning "because of" not only here but also in such a passage as Mat.12:41 where the meaning can only be "they repented because of (not in order to) the preaching of Jonah." Repentance brought the remission of sins for this Pentecostal crowd, and because of the remission of sins they were asked to be baptized.

Ryrie
I believe that Ryrie has a very good explanation which mman failed to address.

This has been all of the discussion on this subject that I could find in this thread Chadman.
I do not find that mman has much to stand on.
DHK

chadman · May 20, 2005

Thanks DHK, good points. Although you are correct, I think mman has a very sound reasoning for believing what he does based on the text, especially in the Greek now that you guys broke it down. A linguist would have a hard time buying our story, but we are after the 'meanings', not the words used.

But like I said before, you can't take everything literally or some things just don't make sense.

I am not sure how people have a hard time understanding why these guys believe what they do? They are taking the Bible too literally. Simple.

LOL, but I'll admit, I take it literally too, when it supports my view. Did I actually admit that?

Hey man, literary honesty.

ituttut · May 23, 2005

Originally posted by mman:
Reply to ituttut

Jesus said in Mark 16:15-16, "And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. 16He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned."

Notice, it was one gospel. Notice it was to be preached to the whole world (would include Gentiles). Notice, the person who believes and is baptized shall be saved. Notice, those who do not believe will be condemned.

But you ignore Christ has not spoken to Paul from heaven. You are basing your information on yesterday’s newspaper (gospel). Damascus Road is a few years down the road. I believe scripture and it says God had hidden in His mysteries, something else to be told.

This began on the day of Pentecost. It is the gospel of Christ, not John the Baptist. Where did that come from??? Not from scripture.

I believe all scripture, and we must be able to correct divide His Word.

[/b]Agree that gospel of John the Baptist of “repent and be baptized for the remission of sins” began on the day of Pentecostal, and that is the Pentecostal message. It is not the “Christian” gospel of the “Body of Christ”.

Here is the Pentecostal (today Catholic – and her children churches )“great commission” gospel of John the Baptist, Jesus, and the earthly Apostles. But some of the children churches don’t really believe what they say, for they contradict themselves, believing they are really saved by Grace after all.

Acts 2:36-39. ”Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. 37. Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? 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. 39. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.” Notice that Peter is speaking only to the “house of Israel”. There was no Gentile around, and if they were, it did not apply to them, at this time, for Israel had not accepted their King.

Now let's look at the “grace commission” gospel of Paul, given to him by Christ Jesus in heaven. Acts 16:28-31, ”But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying, Do thyself no harm: for we are all here. 29. Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, 30. And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? 31. And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.”

Are these the same gospels? There were two gospels during the time of all of the Apostles; One gospel for only the house of Israel, and one gospel of God reconciling the world unto himself.

Please also notice one other differentiation, for Peter’s gospel is to we of the house of Israel, and Paul’s gospel is to I the individual and his house. We today, even the Jew are not of the house of Israel. God says He knows those that claim to be of the Jewish faith, and are not. I don’t want to be in their shoes.

Matthew records in Matt 28:18-20, "And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen"

They were to go to all nations (this would include Gentiles) and teach the same thing (teach, baptize, teach) to everyone who then were taught to go and teach what they had been taught (to go teach, baptize, and teach). These instructions began to be carried out on the day of Pentecost, in Acts 2.

In Acts 1:8, Jesus said, "But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth." (to the end of the earth would include Gentiles).

But we are to realize this did not happen. The Apostles never got out of Jerusalem within the time frame given. Jesus gave the nation Israel a parable saying what could happen if they did not accept Messiah, and it happened. At the stoning of Steven, Israel was cut-off. They will have to be grafted in again, and that will be in the tribulation.

Acts 2:38-39 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call."

This promise was for the Jews and Gentiles.

It was, but that gospel never got spread to all, to the Jew first, and then to the Gentle. It was never preached to the heathen. And since it wasn’t, it was superceded by the “gospel of the Grace of God that came through Jesus Christ”, reconciling the world unto himself.

Paul makes it plain that the law was what seperated the Jews and the Gentiles.

Eph 2:14-18 For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, 15having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, 16and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity. 17And He came and preached peace to you who were afar off and to those who were near. 18For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father.

You are now running all of this together, i.e. the Old to the New. But the Old Covenant has been laid aside for now. You are bringing works of the Jew over into Christianity. This what the Catholics teach. You are denying Paul’s personal conversation with Christ from heaven, appointed Paul the Apostles to the Gentile, and to the Jew. It is now the Gentile that proclaims the Cross of salvation. Acts 2:38 did not do this. This verse is for the kingdom people, the nation of Israel that is looking for their King. There is no King now, and will not be until the King of the Jews reigns on this earth.

Who knew this before Paul? Did Jesus say this on earth, or any of the His Apostles before Paul? You cannot find where Jesus while on this earth said any such thing, nor Peter, nor John, or anyone else until Christ from heaven revealed it to Paul. This (Paul’s gospel) is the first time you hear about the Body of Christ, and the Gentiles being in the Temple.

Forget Paul’s gospel, and what do you have? The “great commission” that never reached outside of Judah, and Israel before being cut-off, Messiah exiled to heaven, and the Gentile with no way to be with their Savior Jesus Christ forever. We must have to believe Christ spoke to Paul on Damascus Road, face to face, and thereafter, in order for the Gentile to be included, and a way for the Jew to be grafted back in.

The middle law was put to death, no longer valid, upon the death of Jesus on the Cross. No longer two different ways, but the SAME way to Christ.

Eph 3:3-6 how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, 4by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), 5which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets: 6that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel,

But you ignore it is now that this became known, and not when Christ was on earth. Now salvation is by the Grace of God, through faith of Jesus Christ that we are saved, and not that of “repent and be baptized for the remission of sins”.

Is this the way you were saved, just like the Pentecostal faith, carried on today by the Catholic church, and most of her children? You are saying what? You are saved by the same gospel as the Catholic church of “repent and be baptized for the remission of your sins”. I’ve never heard of a Baptist really believing this, even though they may feel close to it as most Baptist’s believe in the “great commission”, but then denounce it. Confusion reigns amongst us.

It had been revealed also the the other apostles and prophets how God would make the Gentiles fellow heirs by the same gospel.

But not until Paul is it revealed, and that revelation was explained to the other Apostles and prophets of that time by Paul personally, or by letter. How could David or John the Baptist be saved like you and I? David could not because he did not know by whose name he was to believe on, and Jesus had not come to the Cross to shed His blood. John the Baptist knew Jesus’ name, but Jesus had not come to the Cross to shed His blood. These are those people of God promised the earth, in the kingdom of God, and these are those people that will be in the kingdom of Christ. We are not all promised the same thing, and we were not all offered the same thing from the beginning.

Paul then goes on to say in Eph 4:5, "one Lord, one faith, one baptism;" Not two faiths, one for the Jew and one for the Gentiles, not 2 baptisms one for the Jews and one for the Gentiles. Jesus had taken away what separated them when he died on the cross.

Your dispensation is showing. What you just wrote now agrees with what Paul says. The law and ordinances are no more. The Temple is now gone; the circumcision, blood sacrifices, Holy Days, feast, and all of it. Until the Temple was destroyed, Israel worshipped as before, as did the Pentecostal church under the leadership of James.

Paul also said in Col 1:19 For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell, 20and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross. 21And you, who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled 22in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy, and blameless, and above reproach in His sight-- 23if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister.

THE gospel was preached to every creature under heaven (Jews and Gentiles). The same gospel. Not two different ways for the Jews and Gentiles to be saved. Jews and Gentiles were reconciled by the blood of His Cross since the law that separated them was removed.

But don’t you see whose gospel was preached to every creature? It is the gospel of Paul, and it is the gospel of the Cross of Grace through faith through Jesus Christ, not of works of circumcision, baptisms, laying on of hands as pointed out to those of the kingdom gospel in Hebrews 6. We see there they had to endure until the end, just like all the Old Testaments Saints had to do. The gospel to the kingdom people is not the gospel of the Christian of Once Saved Always Saved, by Grace through faith.

Col 2:12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 14having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

Again, the law was taken out of the way at the cross, it was nailed to the cross. Baptism is described as a burial and being raised. Baptism is done through faith, whether Jew or Gentile.

Yes, the One spiritual baptism. The law of ordinances, which includes “water baptism” was nailed to the Cross, but the Pentecostal church did not preach the salvation of the Cross, for they still had to obey the commands in the “great commission”. This is not the Christian message.

Or as Paul told the Galatians, "22But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. 24Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. 26For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Notice verse 26, that we might be justified by faith. Verse 27, For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. Who are the "we" and the "many" who entered into Chirst? Vs 28, Jews, Greeks, slaves, free, males, females - I think that covers all mankind.

Sure sounds like Paul’s gospel to me. And Paul is trying to get across to the Jew, and to you the Jew was promised by faith, but before it came we the Jew (Paul was a Jew) were under the law, the tutor to bring the Jew to Messiah byfaith–your verses 22-24.

You want to see what God could not tell before? Here it is, in the next verse. That Old Covenant with His people is being set aside now, as Israel has been cut-off. It is dying and God is now going to reconcile the world unto himself, of whosoever will.

In verse 25 Paul explains they (Jews that were under the curse of the law) now are sons of God through faith. These are Christian Jews Paul is talking to, and not that other gospel of the circumcision that preached you must “repent and be baptized for the remission of sin”. The Christian church was headquartered in Antioch. The gospel of the circumcision was based in Jerusalem. This Pentecostal church is where the Judaizers came from, telling the Christians they had to be circucised to be saved.

This ties back to Acts 2:38-39 and also compliments Eph 2:8-9.

You can’t merge works into Grace for the Christian, for Christian faith is of Paul’s gospel. The Gentile under Acts 2 salvation can only be a proselyte, going with those that have the promise of inheriting the earth. Ephesians 2 is the gift from God to those today that come through the Cross of Jesus, and not [/b]by it, as the Jew must.

There is no King now, and will not be until the King of the Jews reigns on this earth. You are mixing works with the Grace of God that comes through the Cross of Jesus Christ. You have just made the case for the Catholic Pentecostal church giving great credence to the Papal Throne, and its infallibility, that they claim comes from Peter as he proclaimed the "great commission" of repent and be baptized for the remission of sins. Christian faith, ituttut Galatians 1:11-12

mman · May 23, 2005

Originally posted by ituttut:
Acts 2:36-39. ”Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. 37. Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? 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. 39. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.” Notice that Peter is speaking only to the “house of Israel”. There was no Gentile around, and if they were, it did not apply to them, at this time, for Israel had not accepted their King.

Now let's look at the “grace commission” gospel of Paul, given to him by Christ Jesus in heaven. Acts 16:28-31, ”But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying, Do thyself no harm: for we are all here. 29. Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, 30. And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? 31. And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.”

Are these the same gospels? There were two gospels during the time of all of the Apostles; One gospel for only the house of Israel, and one gospel of God reconciling the world unto himself.

Yes, this is exactly the same gospel. The story does not stop in verse 31 of Acts 16. Keep reading. What is the full meaning of "believe".

Acts 16:31They said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."
32And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house.

33And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household.

34And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household.

Notice, he was told to believe, the word of the Lord was spoken to him, immediately he was baptized, the he rejoiced HAVING BELIEVED.

Now notice Acts 2:44, And all those who had believed were together and had all things in common;

What had those who are described as having believed done? According to Acts 2:38,41 they had repented and been baptized, and later in verse 44 this entire process is described and "those who had believed".

Acts 8:35Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture he preached Jesus to him.

36As they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch said, "Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?"

Preaching the good news about Jesus, we call it the gospel, contains water baptism.

Baptism is not a work but an act of faith, Gal 3:26-27. The work is of God, not man (Col 2:12). You cannot show from the scripture where baptism is a work. Any definition of a work that you can come up with would certainly include confession. It is something that requires effort and something man does. Will this work negate grace?

There is no King now, and will not be until the King of the Jews reigns on this earth. You are mixing works with the Grace of God that comes through the Cross of Jesus Christ. You have just made the case for the Catholic Pentecostal church giving great credence to the Papal Throne, and its infallibility, that they claim comes from Peter as he proclaimed the "great commission" of repent and be baptized for the remission of sins. Christian faith, ituttut Galatians 1:11-12

I have no idea what you are trying to claim. Neither the Catholic church nor the Papal Throne are scriptural.

Read and understand Gal 3:26-27

mman · May 23, 2005

Originally posted by DHK:
I believe that Ryrie has a very good explanation which mman failed to address.

This has been all of the discussion on this subject that I could find in this thread Chadman.
I do not find that mman has much to stand on.
DHK [/QB]

Who is Ryrie? Since we are quoting others, here are some excerpts from debates and from J.W. McGarvey's Commentary on Acts 2:38.

J. W. McGarvy wrote, "If there were any real ground for doubt as to the proper translation and real meaning of the words eis aphesin hamartion, for the remission of sins, when connected with the term immersion, a candid inquirer would resort to its usage when disconnected from this term, and seek thus to determine its exact import. It happens to occur only once in connection suitable to this purpose, but no number of occurrences could more definitely fix its meaning. When instituting the supper, Jesus says, "This is my blood of the new covenant, shed for many for the remission of sins," eis aphesin hamartion. It is impossible to doubt that the clause here means in order to the remission of sins. In this case it expresses the object for which something is to be done; in the passage we are discussing, it expresses the object for which something is commanded to be done: the grammatical and logical construction is the same in both cases, and, therefore, the meaning is the same. Men are to repent and be immersed in order to the attainment of the same blessing for which the blood of Jesus was shed."

And some more quotes from a debate:

Furthermore, with regards to this preposition, John Batey, in the book published by John Clifford, The English Baptist says, 'that into is the true meaning of eis will appear from the following text' and he gives various texts. Let me quote the other Baptist scholars of equal eminence with A. T. Robertson who has been quoted. Professor A. C. Axtell, professor of Greek Language and Literature wrote, 'The preposition eis in Acts 2:38 may be rendered by several prepositions or prepositional phrases as for instance unto, for, in order to, with a view to. The noun which governs denotes the object or end toward which the action expressed in the predicate verbs was to be directed. Or to state it from the other point of view the result which he would obtain who should repent and be baptised'.

Professor Albert Harkness, professor of Greek at Brown University, another eminent Baptist, the author of numerous textbooks on Latin and Greek, says, 'In my opinion eis in Acts 2:38 denotes purpose and may be rendered in order to or with a purpose of receiving or, as in the English versions, for, eis aphesin hamartion suggests the motive or object contemplated in the action of the two preceding verbs'. Professor Beasley-Murray when I asked him in my correspondence with him, could the preposition ever be translated on account of or because of he says, 'I do not know of any contemporary scholar, in the sense of a living scholar, who would translate the phrase eis aphesin hamartion in Acts 2:38 in the sense of because of or on account of I do seem to recall that A. T. Robertson, the well known Baptist grammarian, maintained that some such meaning was possible in Acts 2:38. What is more to the point I do not see how he could maintain it. It seems to me to be quite incompatible with the context to suggest that Peter meant repent and be baptised because you have been forgiven'.

Professor F. F. Bruce is not a Baptist but the eminence and scholarship of this man would be denied by nobody. He is the Rylands professor of Theology at Manchester University and an Oxford scholar. He says, 'in Acts 2:38 the preposition eis may mean for or with a view to. I remember seeing the suggestion that it might have retrospective force', that's referring to something already taken place, causal of eis as our friend introduced it. But he says, 'this is such an extraordinary interpretation of this preposition that one can only think that the man in question came to the text with his interpretation ready-made instead of deriving it from the context'. I. F. Morgan Wynne, of the Baptist College in Oxford, already quoted, he says, 'It must mean be baptised in order to receive the forgiveness of sins that the purpose of the baptism is to receive the forgiveness of sins'.

Now the preposition is a linear word. It invariably indicates movement towards an end in view. It is never retrospective and it never looks back to something already taken place.

Liddell and Scott in their lexicon say, 'the radical sense of eis is into'. Then into denotes penetration beyond the outside. A new state into which anything is brought by an agency or cause. Now this being so you could render Acts 2:38 'Repent and be baptised into the remission of sins'. But if you did that all you would say would be simply that before baptism you were outside of remission of sins and the act of baptism brought you into the sin remitted state. Thayer says, 'That eis is a preposition denoting entrance into, to, towards, for, among. It indicates the end which one has in view, that is the object or purpose'. Professor Stewart says, 'eis indicates the object or end for which anything is done'. Dr. Wilmart, the Baptist scholar says, 'Suppose we force eis in Acts 2:38 to bear the unnatural and unauthorised meaning of on account of after all we've gained nothing.

Other passages there are which cannot be explained away. Thus our Saviour said before be ascended into heaven, `He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved'. We should hardly dare tamper with His royal word and make it run, He that believeth is saved and shall be baptised. And unless you do change that saying you have by the highest authority an importance attributed to baptism certainly not less than that given in Acts 2:38 translated according to its obvious meaning', says this Baptist scholar. Now what's the sense he says of torturing eis, the construction and the context.

Is the Bible in the English as you have it adequate or if it's necessary to have the course in Koine Greek to understand the plain meaning of Peter's words?

mman · May 23, 2005

Originally posted by Eric B:
Basically, they all SAY they believe in salvation by grace through faith. Problem is, they REDEFINE "faith" as works ("Baptism IS faith"), and then, "grace" becomes simply the providing of a set of intructions on works that we are to do to be saved. That would fit--IF we could actually carry out God's instructions perfect enough to merit salvation. The entire OT record shows that no one can. So the "grace" we need is not a new set of laws, but rather salvation by faith in what Christ did for us. Any works of obedience are a reaction of love (1 John 4:9-5:3), not to be saved. They are done done in faith, (and therefore can be called "Acts of faith") but they do not themselves BECOME the faith that saves.

I am in no way saying that man earns one iota of his salvation.

As an example, please allow me to twist what you have said (in other posts) in the same way that some have twisted my words.

You defined baptism as a work...

"works" is "ergon", which means an act, deed, doing.... Yes, it is "passive" (done to you), but you still have to get up and go and consent to it. IT is still, something you DID. So this IS semantics. Just admit it's a work!

AND

We call on the Lord and are saved by faith.

You SAY you believe that salvation is by faith, yet you said we, "call on the Lord", which by your own definition is a work, something you did.
IT is still, something you DID. It IS just semantics. Admit it, confession is a work.

You believe in works salvation, but salvation is by faith.

One cannot earn his way to heaven, even though you teach we must work for our salvation by confessing Jesus or calling on his name.

O.K., I am though twisting what you have said. You believe confession is an act of faith, right? It is something you do. It requires effort. The same can be said of baptism, and has been by an inspired writer in Gal 3:26-27. Neither of these acts are acts of merit toward salvation. We are saved by grace through faith, no question.

Is confession required? Jesus said it was in Matt 10:32. Is baptism required? Jesus said it was in Mark 16:16. Both, acts of faith.

Eric B · May 23, 2005

Sorry, but the analogy does not hold. You are speaking technically ("confess is somethign you do, it's effort; therefore, it's a work") But coming out of the OC system, with its hundreds of physical laborious rituals commanded, there was a clear contrast between "works" abd a simple confession. You could not tell Paul or anyone one else back then that it was the same thing! Sorry; work is work, and faith is faith. Faith is to be evidenced by works, but they are not one in the same! I do not emphasize "confession" as something you get up and do, though this has unofficially taken the place baptism originally held. You are saved the minute you receive Christ into your heart. Public confession and baptism should follow; but I never said salvation depended on that.

Yes, this is exactly the same gospel. The story does not stop in verse 31 of Acts 16. Keep reading. What is the full meaning of "believe".

Acts 16:31They said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."
32And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house.

33And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household.

34And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household.

Notice, he was told to believe, the word of the Lord was spoken to him, immediately he was baptized, the he rejoiced HAVING BELIEVED.

Now notice Acts 2:44, And all those who had believed were together and had all things in common;

they believes AND were baptized. They did BOTH; so in the next verse, you can mention one or the other, and it is true. But it doesn;t mean that ONE or the other BY ITSELF then EQUALS both. Sorry, this method of twisting scripture is just insulting to the intelligence. With this method, you can prove anything is "scriptural".

mman · May 24, 2005

Originally posted by Eric B:
Sorry, but the analogy does not hold. You are speaking technically ("confess is somethign you do, it's effort; therefore, it's a work") But coming out of the OC system, with its hundreds of physical laborious rituals commanded, there was a clear contrast between "works" abd a simple confession. You could not tell Paul or anyone one else back then that it was the same thing! Sorry; work is work, and faith is faith. Faith is to be evidenced by works, but they are not one in the same! I do not emphasize "confession" as something you get up and do, though this has unofficially taken the place baptism originally held. You are saved the minute you receive Christ into your heart. Public confession and baptism should follow; but I never said salvation depended on that.
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Yes, this is exactly the same gospel. The story does not stop in verse 31 of Acts 16. Keep reading. What is the full meaning of "believe".

Acts 16:31They said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."
32And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house.

33And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household.

34And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household.

Notice, he was told to believe, the word of the Lord was spoken to him, immediately he was baptized, the he rejoiced HAVING BELIEVED.

Now notice Acts 2:44, And all those who had believed were together and had all things in common;

they believes AND were baptized. They did BOTH; so in the next verse, you can mention one or the other, and it is true. But it doesn;t mean that ONE or the other BY ITSELF then EQUALS both. Sorry, this method of twisting scripture is just insulting to the intelligence. With this method, you can prove anything is "scriptural". [/QUOTE]I'm sorry you feel as though your intelligence has somehow been insulted, but I have not twisted the scripture. I simply stated what the bible said and you must have come to a conclusion that is contrary to what you "believe". I agree that confession is not a work and by the same logic, neither is baptism. The bible shows that baptism is a part of faith in Gal 3:26-27. I BEG you to show me even one passage that even hints that it is a work of man. When you do your search, you will find it to be the working of God, not man (Col 2:12).

1. Belief can be used - and frequently is - in the full sense of being obedient. Jesus taught: “He who believes [pisteuo] on the Son has eternal life; but he who obeys not [apeitho] the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him” Jn. 3:36 - ASV).

[Note: The King James translators did not do us any favors when they translated two different Greek words by the same English word. An important distinction was obscured.

Let's see how the verb pisteuo is used in the book of Acts.

Pisteuo is found thirty-nine times in Acts. In the ASV, it is translated as believe, believed, and believers (a present participle in Acts 5:14, i.e., believing ones).

A careful study of the use of this verb in the book of Acts will reveal that in many cases “believing” is a summary term that embraces all of the conditions inherent in the divine plan of salvation, including the command to be immersed in water.

1)Following Peter’s sermon on Pentecost in Acts 2, certain Jews asked, "What shall we do?" Peter commanded them to repent of their sins and be baptized for the remission thereof (2:38). Those who "received his word were baptized" (v. 41).
Luke then says: "And all that believed were together" (v. 44). "Believed" sums up the obedience described previously.

2) On the initial day of its existence, the church consisted of at least 3,000 souls according to Acts 2:41. Later in the book of Acts, it records that many others heard the word and "believed; and the number of men came to be about five thousand" (4:4). It is obvious that the 5,000 mentioned here included the 3,000 in Acts 2:41, and that the "believed" of this passage means precisely what it did in 2:44.

3)Paul and Barnabas, went to the city of Iconium. They entered into a synagogue of the Jews and taught the gospel of Christ.
Acts 14:1 states, "a great multitude both of Jews and Greeks believed"

Please notice Acts 14:2 which states, "But the Jews that were disobedient stirred up the souls of the Gentiles, and made them evil affected against the brethren” (ASV)."

The word rendered “disobedient” is apeitheo, which carries the idea of refusing to be persuaded, a failure to comply.

4) The example I have already refered to, the Philippian Jailer. Look at how the inspired writer describes the whole process, "... having believed in God" (16:34). The perfect participle depicts the state at which they arrived as a consequence of their obedience.

5) When Paul came to Ephesus, as recorded in Acts 19, he met about 12 disciples who had been immersed with the baptism that was a part of the teaching of John, the forerunner of Christ.

Paul asked the group, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" They replied that they had not even heard of the Holy Spirit.

Paul then asked, "Into what then were you baptized?" He did not asked them if they had been baptized. He was not framing a new question on an entirely different subject. Paul knew and understood that baptism was a part of the belief process, concerning which he had just inquired.

DHK · May 24, 2005

Originally posted by mman:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by DHK:
I believe that Ryrie has a very good explanation which mman failed to address.
DHK

Who is Ryrie? Since we are quoting others, here are some excerpts from debates and from J.W. McGarvey's Commentary on Acts 2:38.
[/QB][/QUOTE]You still evade the question. We all admit that there dozens of different uses of the word eis. It is a very flexible pronoun. Your problem is that you want to confine it to what your theology restricts you to believe. As Ryrie point out in so many words--Context is everything. If the context of the verse says that your interpretation is going against the grain of the rest of the Bible then you have a problem. The problem, being that you are wrong. The heresy of baptismal regeneration is obviously not taught in the Scriptures. It takes some heavy duty twisting of Scripture to come up with that doctrine.

Stop acting like the typical J.W. and quckly going to another passage, another author, saying "But what about this?' Every cult uses those tactics.

Address the points the Ryrie brought up. What Scripture did he use and why? Why is "eis" used in some passages with the meaning of "on account of" when you say it cannot? You have failed to adress this question, and the Scripture assciated with it.
DHK

mman · May 24, 2005

Originally posted by DHK:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by mman:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by DHK:
I believe that Ryrie has a very good explanation which mman failed to address.
DHK

Who is Ryrie? Since we are quoting others, here are some excerpts from debates and from J.W. McGarvey's Commentary on Acts 2:38.
[/QUOTE]You still evade the question. We all admit that there dozens of different uses of the word eis. It is a very flexible pronoun. Your problem is that you want to confine it to what your theology restricts you to believe. As Ryrie point out in so many words--Context is everything. If the context of the verse says that your interpretation is going against the grain of the rest of the Bible then you have a problem. The problem, being that you are wrong. The heresy of baptismal regeneration is obviously not taught in the Scriptures. It takes some heavy duty twisting of Scripture to come up with that doctrine.

Stop acting like the typical J.W. and quckly going to another passage, another author, saying "But what about this?' Every cult uses those tactics.

Address the points the Ryrie brought up. What Scripture did he use and why? Why is "eis" used in some passages with the meaning of "on account of" when you say it cannot? You have failed to adress this question, and the Scripture assciated with it.
DHK [/QB][/QUOTE]First of all, eis is not a pronoun.

Actually I thought Ryrie's points were so weak that they didn't need addressing any further. Basically his argument is that it can't mean that because I don't believe it and I can find ONE time of the 1600 times it is used that it might possibly mean because of therefore it HAS to mean because of in Acts 2:38 since we already know that baptism is not for the remission of sins and it can't mean what it says.

It has to mean the opposite of what it meant in Matt 26:28 even though the EXACT same phrase is used.

Anyway, to address the one time of 1600 where you think eis means because of. Now on to Jonah and the Ninevites. Jonah preached and the people believed says Jonah 3:4-5. And their faith was followed by repentance because Matthew 12:41 says, as rendered by Goodspeed, the Baptist scholar, 'When Jonah preached they repented'. The faith came first and then the repentance. What was the evidence of the repentance? Jonah 3:10 says, 'God saw their works that they turned from their evil ways'. Now this is what happened: when the people believed Jonah's preaching they repented and turned into the kind of life required by their repentance. 'God saw their works that they turned' and the word turned is synonymous with repentance in Matthew 12:41. Which way did they turn? Did they turn backwards? Was it retrospective or did they turn forwards? Here you see once again the preposition points forward and is never retrospective.

Now your turn, if you dare.

J. W. McGarvy wrote, "If there were any real ground for doubt as to the proper translation and real meaning of the words "eis aphesin hamartion", for the remission of sins, when connected with the term immersion, a candid inquirer would resort to its usage when disconnected from this term, and seek thus to determine its exact import. It happens to occur only once in connection suitable to this purpose, but no number of occurrences could more definitely fix its meaning. When instituting the supper, Jesus says, "This is my blood of the new covenant, shed for many for the remission of sins," eis aphesin hamartion. It is impossible to doubt that the clause here means in order to the remission of sins. In this case it expresses the object for which something is to be done; in the passage we are discussing, it expresses the object for which something is commanded to be done: the grammatical and logical construction is the same in both cases, and, therefore, the meaning is the same. Men are to repent and be immersed in order to the attainment of the same blessing for which the blood of Jesus was shed."

In other words, "for the remission of sins" is always tied to immersion (either John's baptism or that on the day of Pentecost). To understand the real meaning, is it ever used and not tied to immersion? Yes in Matt 26:28. Does anyone have trouble understanding it there? Then understand it has the same meaning in Acts 2:38.

Again, when you argue that baptism is because your sins have already been forgiven, you are arguing that Jesus blood was shed because peoples sins were already forgiven. You cannot find one translation to support the error you are teaching that we are baptized because our sins are already forgiven.

The Baptists scholars listed previously agree that the phase "eis aphesin hamartion", mean in order to obtain the remission of sins, though I am certain they did not want to come to that conclusion.

DHK · May 24, 2005

Originally posted by mman:
First of all, eis is not a pronoun.

Yes I fully realize that. It was a slip of the keyboard, you might say.

Actually I thought Ryrie's points were so weak that they didn't need addressing any further. Basically his argument is that it can't mean that because I don't believe it and I can find ONE time of the 1600 times it is used that it might possibly mean because of therefore it HAS to mean because of in Acts 2:38 since we already know that baptism is not for the remission of sins and it can't mean what it says.

Click to expand...

The argument is: It can't mean what YOU THINK it says for that would contradict the rest of Scripture, and the Scripture does not contradict itself.

It has to mean the opposite of what it meant in Matt 26:28 even though the EXACT same phrase is used.

Click to expand...

I already answered you on Mat.26:28. Eis is a "preposition," having differeent meanings in different contexts. The context is key. It is not translated the same way every single time.

Anyway, to address the one time of 1600 where you think eis means because of. Now on to Jonah and the Ninevites. Jonah preached and the people believed says Jonah 3:4-5. And their faith was followed by repentance because Matthew 12:41 says, as rendered by Goodspeed, the Baptist scholar, 'When Jonah preached they repented'. The faith came first and then the repentance. What was the evidence of the repentance? Jonah 3:10 says, 'God saw their works that they turned from their evil ways'. Now this is what happened: when the people believed Jonah's preaching they repented and turned into the kind of life required by their repentance. 'God saw their works that they turned' and the word turned is synonymous with repentance in Matthew 12:41. Which way did they turn? Did they turn backwards? Was it retrospective or did they turn forwards? Here you see once again the preposition points forward and is never retrospective.

Click to expand...

Your point made no sense. It was self-defeating. Jonah preached. The people had faith, i.e. believed. What did they do? They put on sackcloth and ashes. Why? Because they believed the preaching . Because they repented.
"They repented because of (not in order to) the preaching of Jonah."
Matthew 12:41 The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here. (KJV)

Now your turn, if you dare.

J. W. McGarvy wrote, "If there were any real ground for doubt as to the proper translation and real meaning of the words "eis aphesin hamartion", for the remission of sins, when connected with the term immersion, a candid inquirer would resort to its usage when disconnected from this term, and seek thus to determine its exact import. It happens to occur only once in connection suitable to this purpose, but no number of occurrences could more definitely fix its meaning. When instituting the supper, Jesus says, "This is my blood of the new covenant, shed for many for the remission of sins," eis aphesin hamartion. It is impossible to doubt that the clause here means in order to the remission of sins. In this case it expresses the object for which something is to be done; in the passage we are discussing, it expresses the object for which something is commanded to be done: the grammatical and logical construction is the same in both cases, and, therefore, the meaning is the same. Men are to repent and be immersed in order to the attainment of the same blessing for which the blood of Jesus was shed."

In other words, "for the remission of sins" is always tied to immersion (either John's baptism or that on the day of Pentecost). To understand the real meaning, is it ever used and not tied to immersion? Yes in Matt 26:28. Does anyone have trouble understanding it there? Then understand it has the same meaning in Acts 2:38.

Again, when you argue that baptism is because your sins have already been forgiven, you are arguing that Jesus blood was shed because peoples sins were already forgiven. You cannot find one translation to support the error you are teaching that we are baptized because our sins are already forgiven.

The Baptists scholars listed previously agree that the phase "eis aphesin hamartion", mean in order to obtain the remission of sins, though I am certain they did not want to come to that conclusion.

Click to expand...

McGarvey can write what he will. He was a member of the Restoration Movement and primary influence in the Church of Christ. When you already have your mind made up as to what you want to prove, you can make the Greek work for you as well. He doesn't impress me one way or the other. The Jehovah Witnesses use the Greek as well. If the espoused doctrine goes contrary to the Word of God, is still heresy no matter how much Greek you use.

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 word eis (unto) obviuosly means "because of" just as it does in Mat.12:41. There is more than one place that it is translated as such. John did not baptize in order that they would repent, did he??
DHK

Eric B · May 24, 2005

I'm sorry you feel as though your intelligence has somehow been insulted, but I have not twisted the scripture. I simply stated what the bible said and you must have come to a conclusion that is contrary to what you "believe".

No;you didn't "state" what the Bible stated. You quoted it, and then read your own interpretation ("Belief IS baptism") into it; when it says no such thing. Once again, there were TWO acts mentioned in those passages; not one act with two names!

I agree that confession is not a work and by the same logic, neither is baptism.

That is not by the same logic. Especially not Biblical logic. I explained it before: "work" is physical deeds; "faith" is the opposite; though it is to be evidenced by works. Two totally separate thigns that ACCOMPANY each other!

The bible shows that baptism is a part of faith in Gal 3:26-27. I BEG you to show me even one passage that even hints that it is a work of man. When you do your search, you will find it to be the working of God, not man (Col 2:12).

Where does this verse say that? There is not verse saying "baptism is a work". It was automaticallyt understood that work was physical deeds, such as "works of the Law". Spiritual baptism "into Christ" is the work of God. Water baptism is a work we do to show our faith and baptism into Christ. "a part of faith" is a more acceptable statement. But you seem to be making it equate faith.

1. Belief can be used - and frequently is - in the full sense of being obedient. Jesus taught: “He who believes [pisteuo] on the Son has eternal life; but he who obeys not [apeitho] the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him” Jn. 3:36 - ASV).

[Note: The King James translators did not do us any favors when they translated two different Greek words by the same English word. An important distinction was obscured.

Let's see how the verb pisteuo is used in the book of Acts.

Pisteuo is found thirty-nine times in Acts. In the ASV, it is translated as believe, believed, and believers (a present participle in Acts 5:14, i.e., believing ones).

A careful study of the use of this verb in the book of Acts will reveal that in many cases “believing” is a summary term that embraces all of the conditions inherent in the divine plan of salvation, including the command to be immersed in water.

1)Following Peter’s sermon on Pentecost in Acts 2, certain Jews asked, "What shall we do?" Peter commanded them to repent of their sins and be baptized for the remission thereof (2:38). Those who "received his word were baptized" (v. 41).
Luke then says: "And all that believed were together" (v. 44). "Believed" sums up the obedience described previously.

2) On the initial day of its existence, the church consisted of at least 3,000 souls according to Acts 2:41. Later in the book of Acts, it records that many others heard the word and "believed; and the number of men came to be about five thousand" (4:4). It is obvious that the 5,000 mentioned here included the 3,000 in Acts 2:41, and that the "believed" of this passage means precisely what it did in 2:44.

3)Paul and Barnabas, went to the city of Iconium. They entered into a synagogue of the Jews and taught the gospel of Christ.
Acts 14:1 states, "a great multitude both of Jews and Greeks believed"

Please notice Acts 14:2 which states, "But the Jews that were disobedient stirred up the souls of the Gentiles, and made them evil affected against the brethren” (ASV)."

The word rendered “disobedient” is apeitheo, which carries the idea of refusing to be persuaded, a failure to comply.

4) The example I have already refered to, the Philippian Jailer. Look at how the inspired writer describes the whole process, "... having believed in God" (16:34). The perfect participle depicts the state at which they arrived as a consequence of their obedience.

all all of this shows is that "believing" is manifest by obedience. Nobody here disputes that. But once again, the works of obedience do not EQUATE "faith", and thus earn salvation! None of this proves that idea.

5) When Paul came to Ephesus, as recorded in Acts 19, he met about 12 disciples who had been immersed with the baptism that was a part of the teaching of John, the forerunner of Christ.

Paul asked the group, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" They replied that they had not even heard of the Holy Spirit.

Paul then asked, "Into what then were you baptized?" He did not asked them if they had been baptized. He was not framing a new question on an entirely different subject. Paul knew and understood that baptism was a part of the belief process, concerning which he had just inquired.

Not so fast! So now; ANY "baptism" is "believing"? Even if it was not into Christ? No, that is not what you are trying to prove. Of course, if a person is going to go through this ritual of baptism; they must be doing it for a reason, and thus "believing" in something. Once again here, just like all the other examples, baptism was a sign of a belief in something. In that case; John's message of repentance. So they needed to be in Christ, and thus a baptism in the name of Christ would mark their acceptance of Christ.

ituttut · May 26, 2005

Originally posted by mman:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by ituttut:
Acts 2:36-39. ”Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. 37. Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? 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. 39. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.” Notice that Peter is speaking only to the “house of Israel”. There was no Gentile around, and if they were, it did not apply to them, at this time, for Israel had not accepted their King.

Now let's look at the “grace commission” gospel of Paul, given to him by Christ Jesus in heaven. Acts 16:28-31, ”But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying, Do thyself no harm: for we are all here. 29. Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, 30. And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? 31. And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.”

Are these the same gospels? There were two gospels during the time of all of the Apostles; One gospel for only the house of Israel, and one gospel of God reconciling the world unto himself.

Yes, this is exactly the same gospel. The story does not stop in verse 31 of Acts 16. Keep reading. What is the full meaning of "believe".

Acts 16:31They said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."
32And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house.

33And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household.

34And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household.

But I believe you will find what they believed at this time is not what they believed earlier. If you won’t take Paul’s word, then perhaps you will believe Peter. Acts 11:16. ”Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost .

You will not find Peter again, or any other preaching the “great commission” of repent and be baptized for the remission of sins” This is a ritual that was to die a slow death, along with the Pentecostal church. John writing his books approximately 30 years after the destruction of the Temple will not even mention repentance other than prophecy, or water baptism unless in connection with Jesus on the earth. But man doesn't want to let go of the Jewish baptism, so they all brought it with them when they came out of the Catholic church.

Ask yourself, why would John not mention the “great commission”. It was laid aside, for today there is neither Jew nor Gentile. He will come in His wrath and again deal with His people. Today is a new dispensation. This is baptism into the Body of Christ of Once Saved Always Saved, and not having to endure until the end of the earthly baptism of those promised to inherit the earth by “repenting and water baptism for the remission of sins”. They can only become “righteous” at death.

We Christians upon belief are immediately baptized into the death of Jesus Christ, and buried with Him. We are dead to the Law and it Ordinances which are for the King’s people. He is our Lord and Savior today. There is no King, for they (the house of Israel) exiled Him to heaven. He is today filling His church in heaven, the Body of Christ, His kingdom, and will come and be Israel’s King after the tribulation, and those looking for the kingdom to come.

Notice, he was told to believe, the word of the Lord was spoken to him, immediately he was baptized, the he rejoiced HAVING BELIEVED.

Acts 16:34, ”And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.” They now had peace in their hearts for they believe the Word of God which is just as Paul and Silas proclaimed, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.” It doesn’t say you will be saved if you do this or that. Baptism was changing, and at this time it didn’t hurt to do it, for this is all very new and confusing. What Paul and Silas said had no works tied to salvation. This is now the work of man, of which Paul acknowledges, in saying he is happy he didn’t baptize more, as in the confusing, people would be saying they were baptized in the name of “Paul” (I Corinthians 1:14-31).

Now notice Acts 2:44, And all those who had believed were together and had all things in common;

What had those who are described as having believed done? According to Acts 2:38,41 they had repented and been baptized, and later in verse 44 this entire process is described and "those who had believed".

Acts 8:35Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture he preached Jesus to him.

36As they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch said, "Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?"

You are back to what Peter later says is no longer valid, as shown above.

Peter was still preaching the “great commission” in Acts 8:25, ”And they, when they had testified and preached the word of the Lord, returned to Jerusalem, and preached the gospel in many villages of the Samaritans.” How do we know this is what Peter preached to the house of Israel. That is all he knew, at that time. Damascus Road, and Cornelius had not yet occurred.

Peter and John come to believe as Paul as found in I Corinthians 1:17, ”For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.”[qb]

Preaching the good news about Jesus, we call it the gospel, contains water baptism.

The “latest good news”, came by the preaching of the “Cross”, which came by Paul, and it is a heavenly gospel. Where do you find the Body of Christ, and our Spiritual Baptism in Acts 2? That is the “gospel of the kingdom” for those saints that will go marching in, not those that will be there to meet them in the Body of Christ.

Our Baptism is up there now with our circumcision. It is the gospel of Grace, without works of the hands, through faith of Jesus Christ, and it is a gift when we believe. Colossians 2:11-13, ”In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 12. Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. 13. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses”.

Baptism is not a work but an act of faith, Gal 3:26-27. The work is of God, not man (Col 2:12). You cannot show from the scripture where baptism is a work. Any definition of a work that you can come up with would certainly include confession. It is something that requires effort and something man does. Will this work negate grace?

Then if the “work is of God, and not of man” as you say, then why should we do it? It won’t “unsave” us, but it won't do any good either. What is its purpose, other than for one endeavoring to prove their faith. You are saved, so you are now saying we will prove our faith to God by acting out our faith in a dead work? What’s next, blood sacrifices? All connected with the Old Covenant is DEAD, and water baptism associated with Israel is Dead, as God cut them off as Christ warned them in a parable, and it happened at the stoning of Steven.

There is no King now, and will not be until the King of the Jews reigns on this earth. You are mixing works with the Grace of God that comes through the Cross of Jesus Christ. You have just made the case for the Catholic Pentecostal church giving great credence to the Papal Throne, and its infallibility, that they claim comes from Peter as he proclaimed the "great commission" of repent and be baptized for the remission of sins.

Click to expand...

I have no idea what you are trying to claim. Neither the Catholic church nor the Papal Throne are scriptural.

That’s what I just explained to you, and you believe as do the Catholic church. They believe the “great commission”, and what Peter says in Acts 2, of which you keep coming back to. This is what the Catholic church believes. You are, as are almost all of the other churches, still tied to the “mother church”, yet deny.

Read and understand Gal 3:26-27 [/QUOTE]Paul wrote this letter to the Galatians warning against that other gospel of Judaizers from Jerusalem and Judah. We see in chapter 1:6-7 the urgency of this letter. Paul can’t believe a Gentile going under the law, or a Jew going back under the law. Paul says that other church of Jesus Christ perverts the gospel of grace. Galatians is scripture of Law Vs. Grace.

”26. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.” By faith in Christ Jesus, we are all children of God. This agrees with Paul’s gospel “as it does not say by faith in Christ plus water Baptism, circumcision, or any thing done by mans hands before or after. We can’t add words to Paul’s gospel. In Galatians 4:9 through 11 Paul tells the Galatians, the Gentiles they were idol worshipers, and why do they want to go back, losing their freedom in Christ. They are going back where they must do certain things in that other gospel that is a religion with works that also believe in Jesus Christ, but when they do, they will be placed under the law and will be expected to keep the laws.

Paul is giving a lesson to the Jew and the Gentile how all were under the law to bring us to Christ, before faith came so that we could be justified by that faith. And faith did come, the curse of the law being removed of the justified - (verses 22-25). The Judaizers from the Jerusalem church were trying to tell the Gentile they must do as the Jew to be justified.

” 27. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” This of course is our one spiritual baptism.

”28. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.” For understanding go to chapter 4:22-31, where in verse 31, I claim to be free in Christ, and not of the bondwoman. Christian faith, ituttut Galatians 1:11-12

mman · May 31, 2005

Of course, in Mark 16:16, the believe and baptized are two different things. But when both are accomplished, the person could be classified as a believer or one of those who believe, as in Acts 2:44 or Acts 16:34 or in any of the other places already listed in previous posts.

Heb 3:18-19 And to whom did He swear that they would not enter His rest, but to those who were disobedient? So we see that they were not able to enter because of unbelief.

Now did all these people (maybe more than an million) stop believing in God? They had just witnessed the 10 plagues, complied with the instructions of the passover, walked on dry ground through the Red Sea with a wall of water on each side, witnessed the drowning of the persuing Egyptians, while being led by the cloud and pillar of fire.

Ex 14:31 states, "And Israel saw that great work which the LORD did upon the Egyptians: and the people feared the LORD, and believed the LORD, and his servant Moses."

Numbers 13 and 14 tell the sad story. Numbers 14:3 "Why is the LORD bringing us into this land, to fall by the sword? Our wives and our little ones will become plunder; would it not be better for us to return to Egypt?"

They knew the Lord had brought them to where they were. Yet in Numbers 14:11, The LORD said to Moses, "How long will these people reject Me? And how long will they not believe Me, with all the signs which I have performed among them?

These people believed in God, yet they did not believe God. They were not obedient.

John 3:36 "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."

Many people believe in Jesus, yet do not believe Jesus. Many believe in him but are not obedient.

When Jesus said in Mark 16:16, "He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned."

Was Jesus kidding? Mistaken? Incorrect?

The bible tells us that in Matt 15:9, "BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN."

People worshiping Jesus in vain. They believe in Jesus, they just don't believe Jesus. I suppose most, if not all, these vain worshippers are sincere in what they believe and teach. Why would someone knowingly waste their time and effort in vain worship?

Jesus said in Matt 7:21 "Not everyone who says to Me, "'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22Many will say to Me in that say, "Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' 23And then I will declare to them, "I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'

Believing in Jesus as Lord is not the problem with these MANY people, it is practicing lawlessness and not doing the will of the Father. These are obviously sincere since they are disputing their sentence.

Jesus said in John 4:24, "God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth."

Worship must be according to truth. What is truth? John 17:17 says God's word is truth. How do we know what God wants? He has revealed it in His word.

Jesus said the way is narrow in Matt 7:13 "Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it."

His next admonition is to beware of false prophets. I think there is an incorrect notion that the false prophets know they are false prophets, just as the vain worshipers know they are worshiping Jesus in vain.

I am not looking for a rebuttal to every point I make, but based on previous posts, would not be surprised to receive such. Quite frankly, most amount to not much more than, "Your wrong".

In the original post on this thread, I laid out how we get INTO Christ, into the Church, and in contact with the blood that washes away our sins. So far, all I have received is a bunch of rocks thrown at what I stated, while no one as of yet, has shown through the scriptures any other way we can get INTO Christ, into the church or in contact with the blood. Yes, some have quoted verses that do not tell us how to get INTO Christ saying that is the way, while ignoring verses that deal directly with that very subject.

Just suppose for a minute that I am right (I know, heresy to some). I believe in Jesus and he is my Lord and Savior. I believed him when he said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved". Just suppose that Gal 3:26-27 really does mean that we are childern of God by faith because we have been baptized into Christ. Let's just suppose that baptism is for the remission of sins and the same phase means the same thing in both Acts 2:38 and Matt 26:28. Let's just suppose that we are saved by grace through faith, just like it is described above. Lets just suppose that I am right when I say we are not saved by any works of man, that we cannot merit one microsecond of our eternal salvation. Let's just suppose that baptism is not a work since the bible nowhere calls it a work, but an act of faith. Let's suppose that after one gets into Christ, he will not live perfectly or a sinless life, but as long as he remains in the light, Jesus' blood will cleanse us of all sin (I John 1:7). Let's just suppose that worship must be according to truth and not what man likes or dislikes. Let's just suppose that many people will be lost who call Jesus Lord, and that the way really is narrow. Let's just suppose that there is such a thing as vain worship, that God really did tell us how to worship him and did not leave it up to man. Let's just suppose that there is only one way INTO Christ. If I were right, what would it take to change your mind?

Eric B · May 31, 2005

the scriptures would support it, for one thing.
Just what is "in the light", then? You have not yet told us. Since it is all a works-based system (whether you call baptism a "work" or not, because obviously that is really not enough anyway), then there must either be a limit to the amount of works that place us "in the light", or, perfection is required. So all we are getting from you is a bunch of "supposes". The ones who aren't in the light and will call Jesus Lord, but be lost are the ones who think they are justifying themselves by works. Why else do you think that Jesus told those religious leaders that harlots and robbers (people truly practicing "lawnessness") would enter before they did. Accusations of "what man likes or dislikes", or "leave it up to man" mean nothing, when you change the gospel to something man earns (which is truly what man "likes", and is "up to man"!)
You yourself said how we et into Christ: we are "baptized" into Christ; but this is the spiritual baptism into the body; symbolized by the water, but not equating a water ceremony.

Water and Blood

New Member

New Member

Active Member

New Member

Active Member

<b>Moderator</b>

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Active Member

New Member

<b>Moderator</b>

New Member

<b>Moderator</b>

Active Member

New Member

New Member

Active Member