Originally posted by DHK:
Then you don't read your Bible, and this is where your confusion lies.
John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
You still don't understand do you? Baptism was unto repentance. I've read the verses you listed many times and none of them preclude what I have already written. All show that it was a baptism of repentance not a baptism because they repented.
Now, for John 5:39, read and understand it.
Why have you been avoiding the following like the plague?
Mark 16:16 - He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.
Now, did Jesus really mean "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not, shall be condemned." or did he mean something else?
Why not accept that baptism if for (unto and not because of) the remission of sins – The logical conclusion of Acts 2:38?
Why not accept that baptism washes away our sins – the logical conclusion of Acts 22:16?
Why not accept that baptism puts us INTO Christ, the logical conclusion of Rom 6:3-4 and Gal 3:27?
Why not accept that baptism saves us, the logical conclusion of I Pet 3:21?
Why not accept that baptism is part of faith as shown in Gal 3:26-27 and Col 2:12?
Why not accept that water baptism is part of preaching Jesus as seen in Acts 8:35-36?
No matter how much you would like for these verses to be removed or re-worded, they continue to remain.
I have asked you time and time again to show the following two things, on this post and other post, yet you
refuse to answer or cannot answer.
Show me how the walls of Jericho can fall by your definition of faith.
Show me how Noah can prepare an Ark by faith, using your definition of faith.
Your whole arguement stems around Acts 2:38 can't mean what it says, because that would violate what you believe about Eph 2:8-9. Therefore you have to find an obscure meaning, much different from the obvious meaning, and accept it. It doesn't matter that the exact phase is used in conjunction with the shedding of Jesus' blood and it must have a totally different meaning there(Matt 26:28) than in Acts 2:38.
It's of no use to claim that "eis" can or should be translated as because. Can you show me where ANY scholarship has at any time undertaken to translate or to render it in this fashion in any version of the bible? YOU CANNOT!!! There is good reason for that, because the Greek does not support that. I am still waiting for even one time where the scholarly translators have ever translated "eis" as "because", anywhere, not just in Acts 2:38.
As I've stated before, in Acts 2:38, they were told to repent and be baptized... "for the remission of sins". The same phrase is used in Matt 26:28, For this is My blood of the new covenant which is shed for many "for the remission of sins".
Do you have any trouble understanding what "for the remission of sins" means in Matt 26:28? Then why do you try so hard to misunderstand it in Acts 2:38?
Now you claim Jesus blood cleans "all those who believe in Chirst". If that were the case, then those in Acts 2:37 were cleansed when they believed which was before they repented. They obviously were believers who were cut to the heart. What would you have told them to do? What did Peter tell them to do? Did you get the same answer? I did. Is that what you believe and teach that a person is cleansed by the blood of Christ when they believe, prior to repentance? If they had already repented, Peter's instructions to repent and be baptized would have been meaningless and confusing.
Just when did those people in Acts 2 receive the remission of sins?
You see, the verse you listed, John 5:39 "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me", indicates that some people think they have eternal life and they don't.
Matt 7:21 tells of sincere believers who will be lost. Of course they were false teachers, but obviously sincere since they were disputing with the Lord concerning their final judgment.
While sincerity is important, it is the truth that sanctifies. God's word is truth (Jn 17:17). Part of that truth is "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" - Mark 16:16. Truth always lies in parallel. No verse ever nullifies Mark 16:16, it can only compliment it. Eph 2:8-9 does not nullify it, it only compliments it. I've shown many times in the past how these two verses are in complete harmony.
IF Acts 2:38 really meant that we were baptized because our sins were already forgiven, would that contradict any scripture? Yes it would.
Mark 16:16 would have to be changed from its obvoius meaning to "He that believeth is saved and should be baptized".
Acts 22:16 would have to be changed from its obvious meaning to say, "Arise and be baptized as a symbol to show that your sins have already been washed away"
I Pet 3:21 would need to be changed from it obvious meaning to "Baptism is a symbol that you are already saved".
Rom 6:3-4 would have to be changed from it's obvious meaning from we are "baptized into Christ" to "baptism symbolized we are already in Christ".
Gal 3:26-27 would need to be changed to read, "For we are all childern of God by faith in Jesus Christ and baptism symbolizes that we are already in Christ".
Now, if these verses(and others) read that way, I would be right beside you, believing exactly the same as you do, but they don't read that way. Their obvious meaning has to be changed and twisted to make it fit.
We know what 2 Pet 3:16 says about twisting scripture, "as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures".
I truly appreciate your zeal, and that is a fine quality to have.
