Law of Christ

The fact is Frank, you do not know this because you have not studied it out.
Did it ever occur to you that words have meanings, differentmeanings. To be precise the word eis has 26 different primary meanings, 56 times where it is completely untranslatable, and 99 other minor translations or meanings. And you are stuck on just one meaning of the word. Incredible! Please don't tell me that the word eis cannot have the intended meaning that I gave you, until you give me all the 125 listed meanings of the word, and find out for yourself what the word means. I have a Greek English Concordance. I can look these things up easily for myself. Do your own homework.
DHK

[ December 23, 2002, 03:34 PM: Message edited by: DHK ]

 

That's our whole point, DHK. The people who SPOKE GREEK attached the proper meaning to it -- and it wasn't yours. It's like the "logizomai" argument you and I have been having. I think that the Early Fathers MORE THAN CORRECTLY KNEW exactly what the meaning was!!!

Of course, to get around this problem, you have a penchant for calling them "heretics" "papist pagans" and any other thing that comes to mind.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

 

That is a typically RC statement.

it is suppsoed to be an argument but it is in fact an assertion. Pathetic.

 

No, it is an assertion, but I think you meant to say an assumption.

Okay. You tell me then why those Early Fathers who spoke Greek didn't come up with the Baptist religion when they read the Bible. I'm real sure they understood the Greek much better than people living in the 16th Century who had an axe to grind.

Brother Ed

 

Hi BobRyan,

we have the words of Christ ABOUT that not-baptized infant "OF such is the Kingdom of heaven"

So you're saying that people enter the kingdom of God when they come into existence, exit the kingdom of God when the Age of Reason comes about (which is a process, mind you), and then re-enter the kingdom of God through accepting Jesus as their Lord and Saviour?

When the child is old enough to comprehend the concept of saved/lost and Savior and sin. They are subject to God's own work "Convicting the world of Sin and Rightouesness and Judgment".

You wrote this in response to my questions:

These questions are in response to your idea that infants are automatically covered by Christ's blood.

And I don't see your response to my questions as sufficient. If infants are covered by the blood of Jesus, does this covering become undone by either the process of coming to reason or by personal sin? If so, is one re-covered by the blood of Jesus through accepting Him through an act of faith?

I understand from your response that when one obtains the use of the faculty of reason, they are then subject to conviction of sin. But, this doesn't address the "Jesus' blood covers us" issue.

it is a born again requirement (in both the OT and NT ages) that applies only to those that have the ability to "accept faith

I see part of your solution to rejecting infant baptism. It is the limiting of the necessity for spiritual rebirth to those past the Age of Reason. That's interesting, and, of course, I don't agree with you.

God bless,

Carson

 

No I meant an assertion, and I was right. You assert that the understanding of the greek in a way other than what is suggested. You don't provide a shred of evidence for it. That's what DHK pointed out. You assert without proof.

Of course you make your asserion because it is also your assumption. So much I will give you.

As for your ridiculoous question, I will only say this: why did they not come up with Roman Catholicism as it exists today if YOU are right? And of course you are gratuitously assuming that history should be normative, and that you know it, and do so infallibly.

The epistomology here is terrible.

Let's be clear: the most important question is how the AUTHOR intended his words, not how others understood them. That's exegesis. Anything else is Roamn Catholicism, I mean eisegesis.

 

Christ's Words when speaking of those infants NOT baptized - "Of SUCH IS the Kingdom of Heaven".

He did not say when addressing THEM specifically "infants NEED to be Baptized to BE OF the kingdom of heaven".

Perhaps you are arguing that He "should have said that INSTEAD of arguing that they already were accepted".

The act of the will in CHOOSING life is always recognized in scripture as "The event" where one becomes saved. But scripture does not say "infants are lost until baptized or until they choose life". God covers them with His blood "overlooking the times of ignorance" as we see in Acts regarding the history of man - so "To Him who Knows to do Right and Does it NOT - to Him it is sin" James 4 - applies here.

It is not so much a deliberate JOINING of the Kingdom of God by an infant - as much as grace covering the infant by default at birth.

That has been explained a few times - but you are looking for "something else"?

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

The first covering is by default, that covering can be lost if the child at some point begins to "reject the Drawing of All mankind" to Christ John 12:32. The Holy Spirit WILL come to that child "Convicting them of sin and righteousness and judgment" John 16 when they are old enough to comprehend it. They can turn from God at any time.

They are enable (supernaturally) with "Free will" by the "Drawing of All mankind" by God - otherwise the Romans 3:9-20 principle would leave them in total depravity.

================================

Yes - the POWER of baptism (spiritually speaking) to SAVE - according to the Apostolic teaching of Peter is "NOT the magic ritual, or montra, or holy water touching the flesh, but the APPEAL to God for a clean conscience" 1 PEter 3:21.

Not possible for an infant.

Not my solution - Peter's

Yes - clearly you don't agree.

I am simply pointing out that we have no other mechanism in scripture that is available and the specifics given by the apostolic teaching regarding Baptism make it clearly not-applicable ot infants.

Acts 2 The Apostolic teaching of Peter is "Repent and BE Baptized EVERY ONE of you" - there is no exception made and there is no mention of "Be Baptized and then years later Repent" as the RCC hopes to find it.

1 Peter 3:21 The Apostolic teaching of Peter is "Baptism now SAVES you - NOT the sacramental water touching flesh - but the APPEAL to GOD for a CLEAN conscience" - done BY the one being baptized. There is substitutionary atonement in scripture - but not substitutionary receiving Christ. Each one must go to God and receive Christ for Himself. The Mormon model does not work - not even for the RCC.

In Christ,

Bob

 

DHK:
I have shown from context, original language and harmony of the scriptures that eis ALWAYS means for unto for the obtaining of the remission of sins.Epi ,not esi, is the word used in the Greek langauge for because of.

Furthermore, Your position is based on two false premises. One, men repent because ther sins are already forgiven. Two, men are already forgiven without the shed blood of Christ.Luke 13:3, Mat.3:8, Hebrews 9:22, I Pet. 1:18,19, Eph. 1:7, Col. 1:14, Mark 14:24, Rev. 1:5, Hebs.9:14.

There is not one scripture that employs eis to mean because of. Your assertion that it may have a remote meaning of because of is unfounded by use in the text of scripture. Possibilities do not equal factual truth.

I have studied the word enough to demonstrate to the rational mind that eis means for unto the obtaining of the remission of sins.

I never claimed to have enough knowledge to convince an irrational mind. However, neither did the apostles, prophets or the Lord himself. Need I say more!

 

DHK:
The word eis in the context of salvation means ONE, FOR. TWO, UNTO. THREE, For the obtaining. I never said it had one meanoig as i have posted this many times. The issue is the fact that epi mans because of and not eis. This is taught by the totality of the harmonious evidence. It is also true as to the meaning of the word from the Greek and it's translation into the english text.

You ignore the implications of your false assumption. One, men repent because there sins are already forgiven. Two, Men are saved without the shed blood of Christ. You do not really believe this. However, your false doctrine want let you have it any other way. This is the IMPLICATION of your assertion about EIS. It is utter nonsense!

 

DHK:
The question is what does Eis mean in the context of scriptures as it pertains to salvation? Not what are the "possibilities" and the number of meanings?

I could copy and paste whole pages from lexicons about the meaning of the word. In fact, I have done so in a previous post to refute your Mat. 12:41 argument. You did not like that "study" either.
Moreover, you will not find in any of the lexicons the application of the word to the text to mean because of. Your appeal is to " a possibility" for which there is no evidence, and to silence, a deadly method to interpret scripture. SEE Lev. 10, Nadab and Abihu.

Your argument lacks scriptural support. It lacks the support of related examples and scriptures pertaining to the subject. It lacks the support of a wide range of scholars on this subject. Most of your baptist friends disagree with you on this subject. I have posted them before, too.

I sugest you follow your own advice and do your homework!

 

Why don't you provide this evidence for me? The word "epi" is used 422 times in the New Testament, not once is it translated "because of," but is often translated in a similar manner as "eis" is.
If you want a list of translations I can provide that for you too. It would be better for you to concentrate on the explanation of Acts 2:38 which I already provided for you, which you seem to be ignoring.
DHK

 

I know of one who does, but only because he says that say translation must give way to theology (because he's dishonest that is) not because the word can actually mean what he wants it to.

[ December 24, 2002, 02:25 AM: Message edited by: SolaScriptura in 2003 ]

 

I know of one who does, but only because he says that say translation must give way to theology (because he's dishonest that is) not because the word can actually mean what he wants it to.</font>[/QUOTE]Is that what you believe Sola?

 

Is what what I believe? I'm not quite sure what you're asking. Are you asking if I believe that someone who would translate a verse incorrectly so that they could prove their preconceived theology is dishonest? If so, the answer is yes. Theology must give way to revelation. That is, correct theology must be based on the truth of God’s word. Unfortunately, for us, the reading of God’s word depends on translation because we were not raised up speaking Koine Greek. But fortunately for us, the truth of God's Word concerning baptism is not contained in one and only one verse. We have Acts 22:16 and 1 Peter 3:21 as well as Mark 16:16 and John 4 and the end of Matthew 28 and even Acts 10:40+, so even if someone might be deluded into thinking that Acts 2:38 isn't clear, there is no doubt as to the necessity of baptism for those who love the Lord (and even those who don't love him but are simply honest enough to admit the truth).

[ December 24, 2002, 03:24 AM: Message edited by: SolaScriptura in 2003 ]

 

No one said that baptism is not essential, Sola. But a proper understanding of the theology of God's Word will lead one to believe that it is not essential to one's salvation. Hundreds of times over in the New Testament are we called on to "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ," or "Call on His Name," and be saved. To use two or three verses that remain problematic to you for lack of understanding, and base your entire theology on those verses is to do injustice to the Word of God. It demonstrates that you are indeed trying to force your preconceived ideas of baptismal regeneration into the totality of the Scriptures on the wrong interpretation of just a couple of verses.
DHK

 

What is it essential to then? Church membership? Church membership is essential to salvation! "Christ is the head of the body, the church" (Col 1:18) "and he is the saviour of the body." (Eph. 5:23) He purposes to "sanctify and cleanse it [the church, the body] with the washing of water by the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish." (Eph. 5:26-27) I see nothing of him planning to santify any oustide the church nor to present them to himself who are outside, BUT NOTICE that those who are inside are washed with water.

TRUE! You, however, understand belief wrong. You see it as intellectual acknowledgement rather than TRUST -- look at any lexicon, the word (pisteuo) commonly translated "believe" in our English versions could better be translated "trust." Trust certainly implies a certain level of obedience, just as Jesus says "And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?" (Luke 6:46) and "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." (Mat 7:21) Also, "And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;" (Heb 5:9)

Furthermore, we "call on his name" through baptism as Acts 22:16 teaches, and that is when our sins are "washed away."

Mat 26:28, Mark 1:4, Luke 3:3, Acts 2:38. What do these verses have in common? All of them have the English phrase "for the remission of sins" and Greek "eis aphesin hamartion." Three of them are about baptism and one about Christ's blood, but truly those which speak of baptism must speak of His blood for "so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ [his body, where His blood resides] were baptized into his death [where His blood was shed for our sins]?" (Rom 6:3) Bracketed info by me.

Jesus did not shed his blood "because of" but rather "into the remission of sins" and we are not baptized "because of" but rather "into the remission of sins" -- we are baptized into the same basin that Jesus' blood flowed into. Thus it can be truly said that just as God put a deep sleep upon the first Adam and take a rib from his side and build him a wife, so did he put a deep sleep upon the last Adam and taking blood and water from his side build him a wife. For those who are baptized by water baptism are baptized into the remission of sins, where his blood is, and are (therefore) truly covered by the blood!

But then DHK would love to translated that same phrase "eis aphesin hamartion" a different way each time, and would love to ruin the truth of John 19:34. What is it, DHK, do you just love novelty and inconsistency or is it falsety?

[ December 24, 2002, 03:48 AM: Message edited by: SolaScriptura in 2003 ]

 

DHK:
The Bible teaches that one who is baptized into Christ is saved and is a part of his body the church which is the pillar and ground of the truth. Acts 2:48, I Tim.3:15, I Cor. 12:13,Romans 6:3-5.

The thief would understand he was a part of the kingdom of heaven just as Abraham, Isaac, And Jacob. Mat. 8:11.

Explain to those living under the new covenant how and why it is easier to get into heaven than the baptist church. You affirm baptism is not essential for salvation. However, you state it must be done. I have checked the baptist manual and it teaches one must be baptized to get inot the baptist church. Therefore, the implication of your doctrine is that it is EASIER TO GET INTO HEAVEN THAN THE BAPTIST CHURCH.
Explain that to the Eunoch or anyone subject to the gospel of Christ. Please use the scriptures for the explanation.

 

Considering that neither the church nor the New Covenant were established until Jesus died, I don't have to -- the thief was under the OT when there was no church, unless you want to count a Jewish synagogue which doubtless he was part of.

(Mat 16:18) "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it." -- That is, "my death will not prevent it." Jesus explained here that the church he would establish after his death.

(Heb 9:16-17 NKJV) "For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. {17} For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives." -- The New Covenant with all it's teachings/requirements (such as baptism) was not in force until Jesus died.

 

Your study of Baptist polity is shallow, and of the Bible likewise. When I trusted Christ as my Saviour I did so on the sole merit of His shed blood that atoned for my sins and nothing else. It was Christ that paid for my sins; not me or my baptism, as you would have some to affirm.
When I trusted Christ as my Saviour, He saved me. I knew then that I had eternal life, God's gift of salvation. I was not baptized until two years later, but I still knew that I was saved. Did my condition of not being baptized affect my salvation any? If I had died during that two year period just prior to my baptism would I have gone to Hell, according to your theology Frank?

Two years went by. Then I was baptized. I was baptized for the same reason the Ethiopian eunuch was: in obedience to the command of Christ, after salvation. I believed that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, as he did. I had confessed Him. It was time for me to obey the Lord and be baptized. It had nothing to do with my salvation--Nothing!!
Do Baptist churches make it a requirement for membership? Yes, most do. So do most other denominations, both liberal and conservative: so what! The cults do also. Making it a requirement for church membership does not make it a requirement for Heaven. The two are not even related.
DHK