Was it ever for the remission of sins?godrulz said:
Water Baptism passed away in this dispensation
- Thread starter Bob Hill
- Start date
Acts 2:38godrulz said:
"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."
Lighthouse said:
The United Pentecostal Church uses this as a proof text for baptism in the name of Jesus Only (not Trinity), speaking in tongues, repentance for salvation. They are wrong.
I have posted the solution before. You could research it in a credible commentary of Greek language study.The Greek grammar (not obvious just using one Engish translation) links remission with repentance, not baptism. This is consistent with NT teaching elsewhere. Mid-Acts seems like a resolution to you, but creates more problems than it solves and is undermined by sound exegesis vs proof texting. My initial reading of The Plot noted this tendency. A verse in NKJV might seem to support the point, but other versions or the original Greek did not confirm it (I looked up the verses in the footnotes to support ideas that were stated).
The baptism was a normative experience of discipleship following heart faith in the early church. The inspired grammar does not make it a condition of salvation, but the verse does show the practice of the early church in obedience to the Lord's last commission. Circ. vs uncirc. is a misreading of the NT, including Pauline theology which is consistent with Petrine and Johannine theology after the resurrection. Try doing biblical vs systematic theology (read the books in context without a filter).
The same thing happens dealing with JWs. They proof text a verse to support a preconceived theology, but basic grammar in the original languages deflates their assumptions.
And that has what to do with this?godrulz said:
It hasn't created any problems for me. In fact, the only person I have heard say it caused problems was you. And you haven't even read it. You are a dissenter, and a liar!
And the root of the problem here is that you equate remission of sins with salvation.:doh:
Lighthouse said:
Forgiveness of sins is part of salvation, but not the only issue. The UPC issue is that you both misinterpret the text due to an ignorance of Greek grammar and a preconceived theology.
One verse does not have all biblical truth. Your interpretation is contradicted by other explicit passages. You beg the question by assuming Mid-Acts is biblical, which it is not.
Tico
New member
godrulz said:
Here are a few other passages that deal with baptism and the remission of sins. The question was, "was it ever for the remission of sins?":
In both of these cases, there is no ambiguity with respect to the Greek: "a baptism of repentance unto or for the remission or forgiveness of sins". The name or description of the baptism is the "baptism of repentance" and it is "for" or "unto" the remission of sins. According to the grammar it's simple cause and effect.
Tico
New member
godrulz said:
We have a lot of posts whizzing past, so let me know if I have missed any of your questions.
Yes, I'm a mid-Acts dispensationalist. The Plot is just one book that expresses this point of view which I have read. Some books are good (like the Plot), some are pretty weak. The Bible is the best!
Good discussions. This is fun.
Tico
New member
godrulz said:
Let's take a closer look at Acts 2:38:
Actually, grammatically, the command to be baptized is directly connected to the result, "the foregiveness of sin". If one would argue that any of the two elements (repentance or baptism) are not linked to foregiveness, it would have to be repentance. "Let each one of you be baptized in or by the name of Jesus Christ for or unto the remission or foregiveness of the sins of yours" is one complete, connected, contiguous phrase. Repentance, if any, is the stand-alone command.
Look forward to your answers to my other questions in that previous post.
I'm not a United Pentecostal, you idiot!godrulz said:
And yet you believe that we must confess every sin, even though only one verse in the entire Bible says to confess. You're a hypocrite.
We must remain it context: Paul is talking to a group of Christians that were either all water baptized as I believe or if you were right some were water baptized (the Jews). They would have been very familiar with water baptism, because that was going on at the time and most likely discussed in Paul’s two years in the lecture hall of Tyrannus and by those converts at the school from which the whole of Asia had the word preached in just two years. They would have needed teaching on baptism. There was also the baptism of fire they would have been taught about, John’s baptism and the Baptism of the Holy Spirit (that came on the Christians at Pentecost and to Cornelius and his household).
The Baptism of the Spirit came on some believers at some times, but does not appear to be the type of baptism that the Ephesians experienced. The Baptism of the Spirit is something the Spirit did very limitedly, but the Spirit does indwell those that except Him and today may have to be water baptized.
I feel when Paul said “one baptism” the Christians at that time and place would have thought of water baptism and that is what Paul was trying to communicate to show the oneness between Jews and gentiles. The one baptism for them was water baptism at which time they had received the indwelling Spirit.
If you follow what a person is to be doing, it would include: Hearing, believing, confessing, repenting, being baptized, loving, hoping, fellowshipping, serving others, praying, and studying. The reason people do not obey is often addressed as not humbling oneself. Baptism is one of those humbling behaviors in which you submit to being baptized. The receiving of the indwell portion of the Holy Spirit is often accompanied with baptism. God does the saving so baptism is not part of being saved, but it is part of the things Christians are privileged to do that helps the Christian to humble him/her self and be a part of Christ’s death, burial and resurrection.
Silk Queen
New member
I had always been taught baptism.
I did it because I believed it was scriptural.
I did it because I believed it was scriptural.
Tico said:
These verses are not believer's baptism in the Church Age. They are JB under the Old Covenant or transitional period. It was still the repentance, symbolized by obedience to baptism, that creates the heart change. Without a change of mind and will, one simply would remain a wet vs dry sinner.
Lighthouse said:
I know you are not UPC, but you both believe Peter taught baptismal regeneration or necessity of baptism for salvation.
I do not say you must confess every sin when you come to Christ. No one could remember every sin, nor is it necessary. What I do suggest is that holiness is more than positional and that one should not expect to have intimacy with a holy God if they persist in godless sin as a believer.
Tico
New member
Bling,
I apologize if I mislead you, but I stated that baptism took place in a Jewish context. That may have meant Jew or Gentile.
This sounds a bit contradictory. If they were very familiar with baptism (even experiencing it), then there would not have been the need for teaching on the topic as evidenced by your next comment:
What's curious about the Cornelius experience is that he received the Holy Spirit before water baptism.
I'm not sure if that last sentence means that we have to accept Him and be water baptized to receive the Holy Spirit. If you are espousing some settled doctrine that is found in the Bible, then there would be no need to say "today MAY have to be water baptized". If that is the case, then there are two baptisms. There is one into the Body of Christ by the Spirit:
And some other water one enables the indwelling of the Holy Spirit?
When do we receive the Holy Spirit?
It has nothing to do with water baptism. Another verse or two from Gal. 3.
Yet another:
We are sealed by the Spirit by faith, believing, not by water baptism. Speaking of this oneness between Jew and Gentile (which, of course I believe) we receive this union through the cross, not through water baptism:
Nevertheless, Paul says that there is one baptism to which you respond that there is really two. What is more is that you state that the baptism he speaks about is the lesser non-saving baptism of water which may cause an indwelling of the Spirit on some occasions (contrary to the above Scriptures which state that the Spirit comes through faith, not baptism in water).
To this answer, I asked that you not give your opinion (or conclusions) without Scripture. I really appreciate your spirit and in no way question your sincerity, but I would point out that this is what the water baptism supporters are reduced to in the face of Scripture--conjecture and good-hearted, but extra biblical arguments to support the position.
You are still yet to answer my question about Matthew 28 and the rest of the commission. Please review that post. It would be great to talk through that issue as well. Thanks for sharing your input. This is an enjoyable discussion.
I apologize if I mislead you, but I stated that baptism took place in a Jewish context. That may have meant Jew or Gentile.
This sounds a bit contradictory. If they were very familiar with baptism (even experiencing it), then there would not have been the need for teaching on the topic as evidenced by your next comment:
What's curious about the Cornelius experience is that he received the Holy Spirit before water baptism.
I'm not sure if that last sentence means that we have to accept Him and be water baptized to receive the Holy Spirit. If you are espousing some settled doctrine that is found in the Bible, then there would be no need to say "today MAY have to be water baptized". If that is the case, then there are two baptisms. There is one into the Body of Christ by the Spirit:
And some other water one enables the indwelling of the Holy Spirit?
When do we receive the Holy Spirit?
It has nothing to do with water baptism. Another verse or two from Gal. 3.
Yet another:
We are sealed by the Spirit by faith, believing, not by water baptism. Speaking of this oneness between Jew and Gentile (which, of course I believe) we receive this union through the cross, not through water baptism:
Nevertheless, Paul says that there is one baptism to which you respond that there is really two. What is more is that you state that the baptism he speaks about is the lesser non-saving baptism of water which may cause an indwelling of the Spirit on some occasions (contrary to the above Scriptures which state that the Spirit comes through faith, not baptism in water).
To this answer, I asked that you not give your opinion (or conclusions) without Scripture. I really appreciate your spirit and in no way question your sincerity, but I would point out that this is what the water baptism supporters are reduced to in the face of Scripture--conjecture and good-hearted, but extra biblical arguments to support the position.
You are still yet to answer my question about Matthew 28 and the rest of the commission. Please review that post. It would be great to talk through that issue as well. Thanks for sharing your input. This is an enjoyable discussion.
Tico
New member
godrulz said:
I certainly appreciate that God changes how He has dealt with folks, but do these verses say what they say: this is baptism of repentance for the remission of sins? Was John's baptism in water necessary for the remission of sins as the text indicates. At one point, you mentioned my ignorance of the Greek. Could you please tell me where my translation of the Greek (which is virtually the same as any other version we have in English) is lacking and how it means that this baptism of repentance was NOT for the remission of sins? If you agree, that it was for the remission of sins, will you recant your statement that baptism in water has never been for the remission of sins? Perhaps you could point out to me where the text says that repentance was symbolized by obedience to baptism.
In the context of referring to my ignorance of Greek, you mentioned the grammatical inner-workings of Acts 2:38. I provided my translation and exegesis of this verse. Could you please point out my error in this regard as well. Please don't state your conclusion, but provide the textual, grammatical evidence of your position.
Thanks for the civility of the discussion. It's much more fun without the below the belt stuff.