Featured It is impossible to convince a Mormon that he is wrong!

You don't need a lesson in Greek to see the obvious in Mt. 3:6-11 and Acts 2:38.

1. Repentance PRECEDES baptism and therefore baptism cannot be UNTO repentance but BECAUSE OF repentance in Mt. 3:11 - "baptize you BECAUSE OF repentance."

2. The doctrine of justification by faith is the doctrine of remission of sins and imputed righteousness (Rom. 6:5-8).

3. Abraham is set forth as THE EXAMPLE of all who are justified by faith - Rom. 4:11; Gal. 3:6-8.

4. Abraham received remission of sin (justified by faith) PRIOR to partaking of any external ordinances of God (Rom. 4:11).

5. Paul explicitly and clearly states that circumcision was a "SIGN" and a "SEAL" of remission of sins which Abraham already "HAD" prior to and WITHOUT circumcision.

Hence, the paedobaptism doctrine of "eis" in contexts where repentance is found cannot possibly mean "in order to" receive remission of sins without repudiating the universal example of Abraham and the universal remission of sins of all pre-cross saints - Acts 10:43 which is directly due to repentant/faith rather than submission to divine ordinances.

 

This is really an unnecessary debate. Paul sets forth Abraham as the UNIVERSAL EXAMPLE for "ALL WHO ARE OF FAITH." Not some! But "ALL."

Second, the example that Abraham provides as a UNIVERSAL example is not a post-circumcision example of justification. So those who say "yes, BUT...." and then proceed to make their case on a POST-circumcision example are in disobedience to the scriptural example.

Third, Paul eliminates EVERYTHING but "faith" as the prerequisite for (1) Remission of sins - vv. 7-8 and (2) imputed righteousness - vv. 3-6 which is his definition of "justification" before God.

Fourth, Paul eliminates EVERYTHING that some would define as "faith" in Romans 4:16-21 to these words:

Rom. 4:21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.

The difference between justifying faith and faithfulness is seen in the following sentence:

"I believe IN Christ and therefore I will be faithful TO Christ."

1. Justifying faith is the prerequisite for faithfulness

2. Justifying faith RECEIVES of Christ whereas faithfulness GIVES to Christ

3. Justifying faith has terminal object "IN Christ" whereas faithfulness has a ongoing activity.

4. Justifying faith is about what God does for you but faithfulness is about what you do for God.

In this Universal EXAMPLE there are no prerequisite ORDINANCE for remission of sins. Indeed, Paul makes it a point to define circumcison as a POST-submissive act to remission of sins and then only as a "sign" or "seal" of what Abraham already "HAD" = remission of sins.


Peter makes the same case as Paul in Acts 10:43 concerning faith and remission of sins in regard to the preaching of Christ by "ALL" the prophets prior to the coming of Christ. That would include "ALL" pre-Abrahamic apostles (Abel, Enoch, Noah, possibly Job) as well as all post-Abrahamic prophets.

Acts 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

Both Paul and Peter provide an easy and clear and unanimous examples that even a half blind man can easily see if they look.

 

That is absolute nonsense! I established my interpretation of these texts on the immediate context and then reinforced them with other unambiguous clear and explicit precepts of scripture.

1. I established the meaning of "baptized you eis repentance" on verses 1-8 and John's explicit demand for "fruits" of repentance prior to baptism. And upon the grammatical order in Acts 2:38 where repentance necessarily precedes baptism and thus Matthew 3:11 must mean "baptized you BECAUSE OF repentance."

2. I established Acts 2:38 on the immediate context and with Peter's own use of "for remission of sins" in Acts 10:43 and could have further reinforced it with his words in 1 Pet. 3;21.

3. I established my doctrine on the clear, unambigous example that Paul sets forth in Abraham for "remission of sins" which he says is universally applicable to "ALL WHO ARE OF FAITH." Can't get it much clearer than that - Rom. 4:8-11).

All paedobaptist controlled translations. The earliest English version by Tyndale does not translate it that way but this way:

11 I baptize you in water in 1token of 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: - Tyndales Version

Why should we move on? You have yet to deal with the facts.

The preposition "eis" in Matthes 3:11 cannot possibly mean "in order to" because:

1. The immediate preceding context demands repentance must occur PRIOR TO baptism and yet your interpretation of "eis" repudiates that.

2. Acts 2:38 demands repentance must occur PRIOR to baptism but your interpretation repudiates that.

3. The ONLY EXAMPLE set forth in scripture as the UNIVERSAL EXAMPLE for "all who are of faith" repudiates your interpretation of "eis" and the whole doctrine paedobaptists build upon it -Rom. 4:6-11

4. Paul's example is a PRE-circumcision Abraham but your position requires you to reject the PRE and base it entirely upon a POST-circumcision example of Abraham.

5. Peter is the one speaking in Acts 2:38 and yet Peter uses the very same phrase in Acts 10:43 "for the remission of sins" which demands it is a PRE-ordinance reality based strictly upon faith in keeping with the Paul's PRE-circumcision Abrahamic example of faith.

You have not dealt with these facts but simply ignored them and chosen PAEDOBAPTISTS authors and materials to justify your ignoring of them.

Your interpretation of Matthew 3:11 is intellectually dishonest and irrational as it ignores the contextual data that totally and wholly repudiates it as even a possible contextual based interpretation.

 

Allow me to take one evidence at a time that Matthew 3:11 MUST mean "baptize you BECAUSE OF repentance" instead of "baptize you UNTO repentance" (forward look).

1. The fact that the preceding context demands that "fruits" of repentance must be prerequite for baptism - v. 8

You cannot have apple "fruit" without first having an apple "tree" as the apple fruit is the product of the apple tree. Likewise, you cannot have the "fruit" of repentance without first repenting. Hence, repentance PRECEDES baptism and must - "baptism because of prior repentance"

2. Acts 2:38 demands repentance as the prerequit for baptism. They are called upon to FIRST repent and then SECOND to be baptized. Hence, Peter would baptize only those first giving evidence of repentance thus he would say that he "baptized you BECAUSE OF prior repentance"

3. Every scripture where repentance/faith are mentioned in regard to baptism ALWAYS makes repentance/faith the prerequisite for baptism (Mk. 16:16; Acts 8:35-37; etc.) Therefore the administrator could say "I baptize you BECAUSE OF PRIOR repentance."

Only a paedobaptist bias determines that all paedobaptist controlled translations attempt to make Matthew 3:11 translate "eis" unto a forward looking translation.

 

Calling it quits for tonight! Hope you have a good evening.

 

Quite wrong. The passage simply means that first you repent, upon coming to faith, and then you are baptized because of the remission of sins that occurred when you repented and believed. This is the order borne out by other scripture.

The Churches of Christ build their entire order and doctrine of salvation on their faulty interpretation of Acts 2:38. They are the most exclusivist "denomination" of any.

 

From an English and language teacher, may I commend you for an excellent and correct explanation of grammatical usage with regard to the issue in question?

 

Don't include all paedobaptists in that; I recently talked with two Anglican Mission priests who do not believe in baptismal regeneration.

 

There are genuine saved children of God in many paedobaptist denominations in spite of their false soteriology. However, paedobaptist denominations teach "another gospel."

 

According to these verses and many more God granst forgivenss, regeneration, salvation at the point of baptism. However, the real question is not if God does but HOW God does - literally or figuratively.

That question is thoroughly answered in Romans 4:7-11; Heb. 10:1-4; Col. 2:16; 1 Pet. 3:21; Acts 10:43 and many other scriptures.

First, please find anywhere in the Old Testament where God ever commanded the Jews to immerse proselytes? You cannot do so! Hence, it has no Biblical origin but is rooted in the traditions of men like most of their teachings which Jesus repudiated.

Second, the baptism of John does have a relationship to ceremonial washings in Leviticus in the Old Testament in regard to the house of God and those who served in God's House. Those washings were CEREMONIAL cleansings or FIGURATIVE and that is easy to see in the ceremonial cleansing of the leper (Lk. 5:12-15).

The English term "for" can be understood both ways and it is used both ways in the New Testament! So you argument is mute. However, in this immediate context "eis" cannot possibly be translated any other way without doing harm to the immediate explanation given in the context - v. 8

I provided you with the earliest English translation by Tyndale? Tyndale was recognized as an excellent scholar as all future English translations up to the 1611 AV were established upon his translation. Paedobaptists simply changed some things to fit their own theology.

There are probably millions of paedobaptists scholars throughout history that have repeated the same error and will continue to do so because of their THEOLOGICAL BIAS not because of sound exegesis. All these translations are either done by paedobaptists or paedobaptist controlled committees. If any "Baptist" influence can be seen in the ESV it would be in the compromise translation of esi as "for" becuase "for" can be interpeted either way.

What is so complicated about noting the grammatically difference between a second person and third person??????? What is so complicated about interpreting "for' in relationship to repentance as "because of" when in other cases where it is found in connection with repentance it must be understood as "because of" (Mt. 12:41 - all the passages that A.T. Robertson gave as well). What is so complicated about seeing the obvious - it is obvious that repentance precedes baptism not only in Acts 2:38 but in all other scriptures where repentance and baptism are found together. What is so complicated about these things? Nothing! I will tell you why it is complicated FOR YOU and it has nothing to do with good biblical exegesis but with your paedobaptist indoctrination that you bring to the table.

The first thousand years of selection and preservation of history was by paedobaptist historians. All major translations are by paedobaptist historians. What else should one expect of paedobaptist historians and translators? Would you expect them to provide evidence they are wrong?

You are willing to trash the clear and explicit teaching of God's Word on this subject for the sake of TRADITIONS. I have challenged other paedobaptists and I have challenged you with Romans 4:6-11 and the PRE-circumcision example of Abraham and not one of you can justify your position by this text. The significance of this text is that it is purposely set forth for "ALL WHO ARE OF FAITH" and nothing can be more comprehensive than that or more compelling as that. You simply ignore it and attempt to justify your false doctrine on the basis of a POST-circumcision example of Abraham!

 

QUESTION: Had he "shed" his blood yet when he said this? If not, then in what sense were they partaking of His blood? The only possible sense is SYMBOLIC as His literal blood had not been "shed."

QUESTION: Does "for the remission of sins" modify "shed"? If so, then Christ is referring to the PURPOSE of the cross not the purpose of drinking the element in the cup.

QUESTION: Is repentance mentioned directly with this phrase "for remission of sins" or has all those who participate already previously repented PRIOR TO partaking of this supper? the answer is obvious! Likewise, the same is true with baptism - repentance precedes baptism just as it preceded the Lord's supper and neither literally remits sin but both are signs, symbols.

Your argument is fallacious. The mere symblance of words is not sufficient because the texts that are in view are connected directly with baptism and repentance and this case has neither connection.

Here the connection is the cross which is yet future and therefore by context it must look forward as His blood had not yet been "shed."

You are twisting the language to suit your own position. You are ignoring the grammar. There is a second person plural with "repent" or "YOU repent." In contrast baptism is a THIRD person directed to the person who has already repented. Remission of sins has already occurred with repentance. It is the one who has repented who is directed to be baptized because of remission of sins due to repentance.

Be Honest! ALL "PAEDOBAPTIST" scholars assert (not admit) this meaning upon eis. 99.9% of Baptist Greek scholars do not "admit" this but deny it and provide obvious texts that disprove that it must always mean "in order to."

1 Peter. 3:21 says the very OPPOSITE of what you are attempting to force it to say. You convenient skip the term "figure."

You are neither open or willing to be led by the evidence. Your mind has been made up and you are on this forum for just one thing and that is to convince others of your errors. The perponderance of Biblical data completely repudiates your position.

1. The Examples of Scripture - no infant baptisms

2. The Precepts of Scripture - Rom. 4:8-11; 1 Cor. 1:17 with Acts 26:15-17; Heb. 10:1-4; Acts 10:43; etc.

3. The use of eis in specific cases - Mt. 12:41;

 

You are repeatedly ignoring the evidence. You don't deal with it. Instead you repeat the same disproven arguments.

Our approach to scripture is different. You approach this discussion through proof texts (Acts 2:38; Mt. 3:11) which are found in contexts that are not designed to provide doctrinal explanations.

I approach it from contexts where the design is to provide the right doctrinal understanding of remission of sins - Rom. 4; heb. 10:1-4. Justification by doctrinal explanation is inclusive of imputed righteousness and remission of sins - Rom. 4:5-8.

Romans 4 is presented as the UNIVERSAL example in a doctrinal passage designed to explain remission of sins and how it is and is not obtained for ALL WHO ARE OF FAITH regardless at what time they lived (Abraham versus Paul's day) - vv. 7-11.

You asked for any Greek scholars or translations and I gave you one man who is regarded as one of the greatest Greek Scholars that has ever lived (A.T. Robertson) and I gave you the translation that all English translations stand on right up to 1611 (Tyndale's). However, even though you know the translations and scholars you CHOOSE to select are paedobaptists or paedobaptist controlled you continue to repeat them as though that is objective evidence.

We are directly discussing Matthew 3:11 and the use and meaning of "eis" in that particular context. Matthew 3:8 completely denies your interpretation. Even Acts 2:38 repudiates your interpretation as repentance precedes baptism and therefore the expression "baptize you eis repentance" cannot possibly mean "baptize you in order to obtain repentance."

These are insurmountable objections to your position that you simply ignore.

 

I never said it did! What I said was that repentance preceded baptism and therefore in Matthew 3:11 "baptize you eis repentance" cannot mean that repentance FOLLOWS baptism just as Matthew 3:8 denies "eis" has a forward look to repentance in Matthew 3:11. What is it about this that you don't get?

No it does not! That is YOUR interpetation of "eis" and that is the whole subject of our debate is it not???

Your response is so common with those who are unable to deal with data that completely expose their views as errononeous and so they are left with only two options (1) admit they are wrong or (2) attack the person presenting with the problems and use that person as the scape goat to escape the dilemma.

It is obvious you have chosen the second option BECAUSE you have refused and continue to refuse to deal directly with the objections placed in front of you. If you were trulely objective in your approach (and you are not) you would have at least admitted that these things are serious objections to your position instead of habitually ignoring them and repeating subjective paedobaptists sources, that I have directly addressed and answered.

 

I would encourage you to continue your discussion with Biblicist. He and I have come to serious verbal blows, but I continue to exchange ideas with him.

Just be aware that he sometimes posts with the manner of a pit bull on steroids, then ignore that (if you can), and continue your discussion.

Also, being passionate about something naturally leads to passionate statements. I should know, as I often do that.