Could you say the same?

Acts 22:16

1. A modern literal Spanish translation: “Y ahora, ¿por qué te detienes? Levánte y sé bautizado, y lava tus pecados invocando su nombre” (LBLA) = “And now, for what to-you you-detain? Let-you-rise and you-be baptized, and wash your sins invoking His name.”
2. The old 1560 English Geneva Bible in its 1602 revision: "Now therefore why tariest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sinnes, in calling on the Name of the Lord" (GenB).
3. W. Tyndale's early English New Testament: "And nowe, why tariest thou? Aryse and be baptised, and wesshe away thy synnes, in callyng on the name of the lorde" (1526).
4. The 1568 English Bishops’ Bible: “And nowe why taryest thou? aryse, & be baptized, & wasshe away thy sinnes, in calling on the name of the Lorde” (BishB).

Mark 16:16 in the oldest surviving Greek manuscripts? Not there.

Acts 2:38a “Arrependei-vos, e seja batizado cada um de vós em nome de Jesus Cristo, para | remissão dos vossos pecados” (DA ERC|DA ERA)
= "You-must-repent-you, and-so let-s/he-be-baptized each one of you in name of Jesus Christ, in-order-for remission of-the your sins."

Two commands: Repent with effect of remission of sins and baptism. The text says nothing of having a specific intent to obtain something when being baptized. The text uses strong imperative for "You-must-repent-you," but obligatory subjunctive "let-s/he-be baptized." The purpose of baptism is to properly follow our obligation from repentance.

The twisted use of KJV "for" was possibly motivated by a desire not to accept baptisms by other denominations. Even the KJV translators did not intend this: their 1611 edition had a comma immediately before "for."

 

Bmerr,

I do enjoy our discussions on this subject. First, let me address the Greek word "en/ev". The spelling doesn't matter much. The Greek letter "nu" (pronounced like an English n) looks like an English v. So "en" is just a transliteration of what would look like "ev" in your lexicon. Your lexicon was quite right concerning the meanings. It is also used in Scripture to mean "by," as in "something is done by something else". Luke 4:1, where Jesus was led by the Spirit, is a prime example of such usage.

So, nope, it doesn't affect my argument at all. Being baptized in/by/with the Spirit is still valid in I Corinthians 12:13 and in Acts 2. Sorry for the confusion with the transliteration of the word, though.

I thought you were quoting someone from the board in the quote box about Cornelius and household being indwelled by the Spirit prior to baptism. At any rate, your own thoughts and observations are quite good, and I'm glad you do have your own observations and do your own study. I've seen too many believers--of all theological stripes--who simply took their preachers' words as Gospel.

Well, I don't know that he was only planning on speaking for a minute or less. It's quite possible he was going to expound more on the nature of the atonement, the necessity of the Resurrection, the way God prepared for Christ to come, and do an apologetic/evangelistic sermon. We don't know. But I would say that telling someone who knows nothing about Jesus all I felt he ought to know about Him would take well more than a minute (not what he MUST know, but what he should). Either way, it's speculation. We don't know how long Peter intended to preach, only how long he did before God interrupted.

So, at what point in those verses did the Spirit fall? Right before he got out "Of a truth"? After "accepted of him"? Somewhere in between? All the way into the next verse? Unless you accept the chronology of Acts 10 and don't see it as contradictory with Acts 11, you've got to arbitrarily place the coming of the Spirit. Acts 10, though, reads like a chronological account, and there's no reason why it can't be and why the Spirit's interruption where it is shown in Acts 10 cannot be considered the beginning of Peter's intended sermon.

Obviously, and it seems reasonable to me that the Spirit falling on these Gentiles after Peter spoke the essentials of the Gospel so they could believe it would still be considered the beginning of the sermon. Either scenario is technically plausible, but is it really reasonable to assume that the Holy Spirit through Luke arbitrarily decided to complicate matters by making the scene in Acts 10 non-chronological? So far as I know, that's not a common happening in Acts. My view seems more in keeping with the general pattern in the book.

Yes, yes, exactly. But why didn't they receive the Holy Spirit? And why was the whole thing miraculous? And why was the laying on of hands necessary? All that is answered in Acts 8:16, where we're told that the Holy Spirit had not fallen on any of them. Thus, the Samaritans were not included in the initial outpouring of Acts 2, which makes sense, since only Jews were included in that. Thus, they constituted a special case where people received the Spirit individually through the laying on of hands.

At this point, I'm speculating, but I would guess that the reason for the charismatic manifestations of the Spirit was something along the lines of identifying who'd received Him and who hadn't among the Samaritans.

This situation is a different one from Acts 8. Here, they aren't receiving the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands. Once they heard the Gospel of Christ from Paul, received the indwelling Holy Spirit, and were water baptized, then the Holy Spirit fell on them. Notice the difference in terminology. In Acts 8, the Samaritans received the Holy Spirit. In Acts 19, the Spirit fell on them.

You're partially right. In both cases, there was the impartation of miraculous gifts. In the case of the Samaritans of Acts 8, however, there was also the impartation of the indwelling Spirit himself.

I disagree (bet ya didn't see THAT coming! :tongue3: ). Again, notice Paul's question: "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" That goes hand-in-hand with Paul's idea in Ephesians 1:13--"in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise." I don't see any way Paul's question could be taken other than, "Did you receive the indwelling Holy Spirit when you believed?" I added the word "indwelling" for clarification, although I think "receive" is clarification enough.

Let me briefly cover the others.

"But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified."--John 7:39

That verse doesn't speak of miraculous gifts, but rather the Spirit whom those believing in Him would receive. No time limits. No limits at all. All believers receive the Holy Spirit.

"For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, 'Abba, Father.'"--Romans 8:15

Surely you don't see charismatic gifts being spoken of in this verse?? If you really do, we'll talk about it.

"For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted--you may well put up with it!"--II Corinthians 11:4

Rather than charismatic gifts, this passage equates receiving the Spirit with accepting the Gospel.

"This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?"--Galatians 3:2

Once again, do you really see the charismatic gifts there?

There is one I didn't list but that I'm sure you won't see the charismatic gifts in: Acts 2:38.

Completely agreed. Like the Apostles, the household of Cornelius had the Holy Spirit fall on them and indwell them at the same time.

This post is ridiculously long as it is. I'll let you read it before plaguing you with more responses to your last two posts. I will answer your other questions, probably tomorrow, but it's 1:00 in the morning right now (and I have class--at a Restoration Movement college, ironically), and this post is turning into a book.

Michael

 

Tazman,

You quoted me...

And then quoted this passage...

And you then said...

I dont know why it wouldnt.

When I was born again...and I remember it like it happened 10 minutes ago rather than 25 years ago...I repented (acknowledged my sin and need for Christ), was Spirit baptized (literally discerned the Holy Spirit indwelling me and sealing me into Christ's body), which is just what the scripture you posted said would happen.

Several weeks after that I was water baptized.

There are millions upon millions of us...world wide...with "new eyes" who read it just that way

All born again people have a fear..."respect"...for our heavenly Father.

Grace and peace to you,

Mike

 

Bmerr,

I'm going to go ahead and respond to your second post. You asked a lot of good questions.

To the faith group I saw as most completely conformed to the Word of God in faith and practice: the Baptists. I know they're a wide spectrum, so I am a non-Calvinist, instrument-using, non-cessationist, Bible-believing Baptistic Christian. Of course, going to a Restoration-oriented school and lacking a car means I still attend Restorationist churches quite frequently. I no longer identify myself with that movement or its distinctive views, however (although I am actually quite fond of the ideal of identifying oneself merely as "Christian," "disciple," "believer," or other Scriptural names).

You're asking me where the Scriptures say one should obey out of obedience? Baptism is something to be obeyed. Thus, one should be baptized out of obedience. I think you'll agree with that much, anyway. Now, from your perspective, must one be baptized for the express purpose of obtaining remission of sins in order to be saved? Or is it sufficient for one to be baptized out of a heart wanting to follow the will of God, not yet having completely developed his theology, but trusting in Jesus for his salvation and convinced he ought to do what he finds in the Word? Is God's grace, in your opinion, vast enough to apply to all who follow the instructions of "he that believes and is baptized"?

This isn't a theological trap or anything. I just want to know where you stand. Now, about the purpose of baptism in the Scriptures--that's our whole debate, so I won't touch on it in this paragraph, but suffice it to say that it is completely appropriate to be baptized for the Scriptural reason as I see it in the Bible.

Fair enough. I thought, perhaps, he might have watched Paul and Silas a bit before falling asleep at his post. Either way, it's not central to the argument and is quite speculative.

Not only would it be reasonable, but it is necessary to go to other passages to discern the purpose of baptism. And no one here is arguing that baptism is not important--even of the utmost importance. The debate is over whether salvation hinges upon it.

Darron Steele covered this one quite well. It distinctly separates baptism and washing away of sins and links the latter with calling on the name of the Lord.

I was referring to when you said this:

You stated that as a premise in your argument on Ephesians 4:5, while it's actually your conclusion. In my subsequent post, I pointed that out.

And here we are. Darron Steele addressed Acts 2:38 gramatically. Basically, what happens is a break in thought: "The group of you repent, let each single one of you be baptized, for the remission of the sins of the group of you". Now, two interesting things happen gramatically with baptism: One, the tense is not any sort of imperitive and is much weaker than imperitive; that is, if it's between "each of you must be baptized" and "each of you may be baptized", it's closer to the latter. Furthermore, the change in number and person and the similarity of number and person for "your sins" and "repent" serves to sever baptism from the dynamic and make it a reflection and result of repentance/remission of sins rather than setting up a causal relationship between baptism and remission of sins. Peter's audience would not have seen baptism as essential to salvation, but as the appropriate identifier of having already been saved via repentance and remission of sins.

Now, since that's the way it works in Acts 2:38, the next question is: are there examples in Scripture where repentance and remission of sins are directly linked without baptism being a cause of remission of sins? As a matter of fact, that's exactly what we find in Luke 24:47 where "repentance and remission of sins" is to be preached. It is also consistent with the description of John's baptism in Luke 3:3--"of repentance for the remission of sins". Furthermore, there is the fact that Acts 22:16 separates "washing away of sins" and "baptism," making baptism conditioned on calling on His name.

In any case, salvation is not conditioned upon baptism, but is rather reflected by baptism.

Michael

 

I don't say that because the manifestation for the gift seen in Acts 2 was what Peter was referring to - and that is not something we see happening at Baptism today. Certainly rarely if ever.

I believe that the convicting work of the H.S (John 16) happens pre-conversion and that the new Birth work of the H.S happens pre-baptism as we see in Romans 10.

So that only leaves the special manifestations of the gift seen in Acts 2 - which WERE happening at the time Peter was speaking - but are not happening now at that level of consistency. It would be misleading to make that promise at this time for anyone seeking baptism as if AT baptism is when that would happen.

In Acts 10 it happened BEFORE Baptism and in other cases - Acts 8 - post baptism and today - that level of outpouring almost never happens. But the Romans 2 New-Birth work happens even before Baptism for those who choose to put their faith in Christ.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Just to clarify, on my last point concerning the tense of "let each of you be baptized", I said it was closer to "may" than "must", but Peter's audience would not have seen it as optional. They would have seen it as obligatory, but not as causing remission of sins. Something like: "All of you absolutely must repent (and each single one of you should be baptized) for the remission of the sins of all of you."

Michael

 

You are welcome and thank you. I strongly believe that your bias prevents that. That is okay; we all have our biases.

On Acts 2:38

Actually, I have been quite clear that "both" were not what was required to obtain remission of sins. Repentance was what was required to get remission of sins. A repentance that would motivate baptism was required.

I never said baptism is "only a symbol, or representation of our sins being remitted in repentance." I most certainly do not believe that. Similar views, while common among my fellow Christians in Baptist congregations, are not in Scripture. Such views are like the view that `we contact the blood of Jesus in baptism' common among my fellow Christians in Restoration congregations -- another view not in Scripture.

Please remember that I am my own Christian.

Baptism is a commandment to be obeyed to show that we are serious about our conversion. That is my most prominent belief about baptism.

 

Of course I see the point you are trying to make. I have seen this point many times.

For Acts 2, the Jewish audience had not been told anything about salvation through Jesus Christ. They were simply told that they had murdered God's Annointed. I bet they were absolutely terrified.

Peter then explained to them what they can do to improve their condition. Judaism had a pre-Christian tradition of conversion baptisms; Scripture shows that circumcision made one a Jew, but the Talmud shows that a Jew was not considered a Jew until after subsequent convert baptism.

These Jews were told to convert to following Christ. They were to repent from disregarding His teaching to following it. They were to show that conversion by baptism.

Saul's conversion is very important. Saul was not a follower of Jesus Christ. He certainly did not see Him as getting him to Heaven. Saul was quickly brought into submission, but knew nothing of Jesus Christ as Savior. Saul had to be told to call on Jesus Christ to save Him.

As I have already shown, Acts 22:16 when translated more carefully separates baptism and `washing away' sins by calling on the Lord for salvation.

Let me flip one of your questions on you: If Peter's audience was not obtaining their salvations by completed baptism, how could you say Paul would have been? This is highly unlikely considering that he himself clearly denied that works subsequent to faith cause salvation, such as at Ephesians 2:8-10.

 

Bmerr,

I agree totally on the Greek preposition thing. When discussing nuances of languages, ESPECIALLY one as complex as Greek, it's good for those of us who are not experts and must defer to those who are, to have someone to keep us in check. We are at somewhat of a disadvantage, though, because nuances and exact definitions and grammatical structures and whatnot come into play quite often in discussions like ours.

Acts 10:33 sounds like a reference to the Great Commission to me: "...teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you." It's not in the true sense, obviously, since Cornelius would not have known the Commission, but Peter may have heard that, thought of the Great Commission, and set about to disciple (or at least get a good start on discipling) Cornelius and co.

Obviously, I see nothing that is contradictory to my view in that, and you see nothing that is contradictory to your view, and it would seem that you see nothing in that passage alone that contradicts me, nor I you. So I propose that further discussion on this passage (unless one of us gets some sort of grand epiphany) would probably be pretty fruitless in the course of this whole discussion. So, I propose moving on to other Scriptures on the subject, which we seem to have already begun to do.

I'm a bit unclear on your position with the term "received" in connection with the Holy Spirit in Scripture. Do you mean that it always and only means receiving the Charismatic gifts, or only that it can refer to that? And do you believe that believers do, indeed, receive the personal indwelling of the Holy Spirit? If we disagree on these points, which are much more basic, it might help our discussion, before we start debating whether "received" in this passage or that refers to the Charismatic gifts or to the personal indwelling, to study whether there is, in fact, a personal indwelling.

I'm glad we are able to be civil with each other. I attend Central Christian College of the Bible, and the baptism debates here can get ugly, and fast. Those types of debates tend to be fruitless. I hope this discussion becomes one where we both can leave with a greater understanding of the Word of God. I can't know for sure, but it would seem that the early Restorationists (the Haldanes, the Campbells, Raccoon John Smith, Walter Scott, Barton Stone--those who were around before the Restoration Movement split and became quite sectarian in itself) would have wanted to approach differences in doctrine this way.

Michael

 

Bmerr,

Mike or Michael or Mikey or anything remotely resembling the above is fine. I'm not real particular.

Using an English translation is good, but limited. There are cases wherein the Greek is ambiguous and could translate one of two ways, and the translators had to make a decision on which way they thought it should go. Translations closer to the "dynamic equivalence" end of the spectrum like the NIV do so much more than translations on the "formal equivalence" like NKJV or NASB, but both do so at times. A good study Bible will usually have footnotes indicating alternative translations.

Your leaning--that the believer's reception of the Holy Spirit is figurative and through the Word--I'm not familiar with that position at all, really. I have heard of it, but never talked to anyone who held it. It seems to go contrary to much of the Bible's teaching on the Holy Spirit. Perhaps you could elaborate?

I think, in terms of rabbits, some discretion should be exercised. This particular "rabbit," I think, is helpful to our understanding of the subject at hand. The reason is that I believe that the believer is indwelled by the Holy Spirit, both causing and signifying salvation (or, at the very least, the latter--signifying salvation); thus, someone who has received the Holy Spirit is saved. It would follow that if the Bible teaches reception of the Spirit outside of water baptism, then there is salvation outside of water baptism.

"Non-cessationist" does mean I believe the charismatic gifts still exist. I am not Pentecostal or Charismatic by any means (hence why I didn't take that label), but I will not declare dead what God has not, and so far as I can see, the Word does not declare those dead. Perhaps we can discuss that subject some time, too.

I agree with the ideal of being a Christian only. The problem, as Campbell (I believe) understood, was that many, many groups and sects proudly hold the name "Christian". That was his reasoning for using the term "Disciple". Unfortunately, that name now refers to the sect known as the "Disciples of Christ". "Christian" as a term has so many possible meanings behind it that it is now essentially meaningless unless one clarifies what he means by it. Baptists, Presbyterians, "Church of Christ" members, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, Roman Catholics, Lutherans, and Methodists all claim the title "Christian" and yet have such widely varying beliefs that, looking at all of them without a preconceived definition of the word, one could only deduce that a Christian was someone whose beliefs had something to do with someone named Jesus.

Thus, I see such titles as necessary to let people know, in few words, where I stand on various doctrinal issues (or, rather, where I see the Bible standing on various doctrinal issues). I am, however, flatly against denominationalism--divisions in the Church caused by turning doctrinal lines into battle.

Indeed, he can't. It is impossible to do the will of God if one does not know the will of God. But say a believer knows it's the will of God for him to be baptized. He does not know why he is being baptized (we can come up with a thousand reasons why he does not; that is pretty irrelevant). He is baptized out of a love for Jesus Christ his Savior, out of a faith that this is God's plan, although he may not yet (or ever, this side of eternity) understand the reason behind it. Would God reject him, according to how you read the Scriptures?

Taking Mark 16:16 as you read it, I would think God would not reject him. It does not, after all, say, "He who believes, is baptized, and understands that he is baptized in order to be saved, will be saved," does it?

Your idea about grace--I like it. It's a bit incomplete, though. Grace is anything done through the unmerited favor of God. Our salvation itself is an act of grace; our instruction and teaching is part of grace; our increasing righteousness before God is also something done by His grace. Anything that comes from God comes from grace, because we didn't earn a bit of it.

You're right; no English translation is so worded. Why is that? They all preserve the Greek word order. Now, word order in the Greek and word order in the English signify two different things. In English, the way that's phrased would seem to make baptism a condition for remission of sins. But, as I pointed out, the nuances in the Greek appear to disconnect the two, which is consistent with other Scriptures.

I suppose it might look like that argument at first glance, but it's not. I was in the CoC long enough to have heard that argument given and refuted and defended and refuted. Your theology is not a works-based salvation any more than mine is. Rather than "It can't mean what it says," mine is "Let's look closely at what it does say and how Peter's audience would have heard it and how it combines with the rest of Scripture."

It is a grave error for anyone of any theological background to pit Scriptures against each other. Instead, they should be taken together--forming a single, cohesive picture. But you already knew that.

I think we both have a tendency to see all Scriptures through the lens of their theology. In that case, though, I was making a conclusion based upon the arguments I'd just presented. I worded it badly. It should have said something like, "Therefore, as far as I can see from the preceding verses, salvation is not conditioned on baptism..."

This is a refreshing discussion compared to most theological disputes I've witnessed and been a part of.

Michael

 

Word order does not matter as much in Greek, in Spanish, and in Portuguese as it does in English. In those languages, the widely-varying forms that words take in those languages help cause sentences to make sense.

Foreign translators into Spanish and Portuguese do not need to rearrange the word order to reflect the communication of the Greek; they have verb tenses to match the Greek verb tenses that English does not have.

Foreign languages are not just `English with different words.' Foreign languages have different word-meaning match-ups AND different grammatical constructions than English does.

Truth be known, there is a reference work that has the English rendering you suggest. The King James Study Bible as published by Thomas Nelson Publishers, has "Repent for the remission of sins, and you will receive the gift which is the Holy Spirit; and let each of you be be baptized in the name of Christ" (page 1665-6).

Do you want to know what the 1611 translators wrote? Here we go: "Then Peter said vnto them, Repent, and be baptized euery one of you in the Name of Iesus Christ, for the remission of sinnes, and ye shal receiue the gift of the holy Ghost." They broke "be baptized" from "for the remission of sins." I doubt that they intended for baptism to be viewed as the primary player here. If the "and" was intended to mean `and so,' baptism would be understandable as obligated by repentance.

I can assure you that Spanish and Portuguese translations do not support the `salvation by completed baptism' position. I have been speaking conversational-level Spanish for over 12 years now. The command to repent is a strong imperative rarely used in regular speech, and the command to repent is obligatory subjunctive -- obligated by the repentance. The pardon for sins comes from obeying the command to repent.

 

Bmerr,

Exactly. My point was that English translations preserve the Greek word order, and word order in Greek doesn't mean what it does in English. Your interlinear was right: the words in Greek run in the same order as they do in English. But, as I was trying to get across (and apparently didn't do such a good job... sorry), it's the grammar, not the word order itself, that makes the difference, because word order simply doesn't do the same thing in Greek that it does in English. That's why it's important to look at verb forms and number/person and that sort of thing to see how Peter's audience would have taken his words. Darron and I agree completely on this point.

I see a problem reconciling the figurative indwelling view with I Corinthians 6:19, which tells us that our body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in us. Making us a temple means that the Holy Spirit must dwell in us in a way similar to how that God dwelled in the Temple of the Old Testament. He is thus not merely sanctified and revered there, but is actually dwelling there.

I don't see any reason to reject the natural reading, since (so far as I know) there are no nuances in the Greek lost in the English translations. At any you're right that the more important issue is how the Spirit works, but I don't know if that's the right rabbit to chase here. In this discussion, I think the important point is that believers somehow "receive" the Holy Spirit (not merely the Charismatic gifts) who seals them, and that thus, the Holy Spirit is in/with believers in a special way. Romans 8:9 says that "if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His." So, what we can know, and what is important for this conversation, is that if the Holy Spirit is not working in, through, and with someone in this special way (whatever the nature of that way), that person is not saved; conversely, if the Holy Spirit is doing so, that person is saved.

Thus, I think Scripture is pretty clear that all believers "receive" the Holy Spirit in some sense (though it can be debated in what sense, precisely, that happens). Perhaps every time it says "receive" with the Holy Spirit, it's not talking about that being "sealed," becoming the "temple," and coming to "have" the Holy Spirit, but at least some of the times, I see no reasonable alternative to it.

Now, if that's true, then in special cases, the "reception" of the Holy Spirit, when He begins working closely in/with the converts, might be shown by miraculous signs when He sees fit to manifest Himself so. Thus, the salvific receiving of the Holy Spirit may well be coupled with Charismatic phenomena, or at least may well have been in the early days of the Church, so that when we see that someone "received" the Holy Spirit and that He "fell on them" or "filled them" or that someone began manifesting supernatural phenomena, the two are not mutually exclusive, but coupled together. Case in point: the believers in Samaria.

That's why I think chasing this rabbit trail to see where it goes is important, because it has some pretty profound implications in this discussion.

Michael