Distortion of Scripture

Regardless of the "strategy" God was using for the Jews - the question remains. Are the GIFTS of the Holy Spirit (1Cor 12) for believers or unbelievers? Are they for the born-again or for the unsaved?

If they are for the saved - the born again -- then you have a problem in Acts 10 trying to say that Cornelius AND his household were all unforgiven -- yet filled with the Spirit and given the 1Cor 12 Gifts - do you not?

Was it at his baptism?

Is John 3 part of the New Testament?

Was Jesus lying to Nicodemus in John 3?

Was the incident in John 3 "before the Cross"?

Did Jesus say "Some day in the future the spirit will move upon the heart of a person and they will be born again according to the new rules about which a Jewish teacher of scripture would not heave any information because all you have is scripture"??

So then he was "lying to Nicodemus" ??

 

SouthernBoy,

You posted:

Great passage of scripture. Great truth. The "church" of course is all born again people. To say that "the Church" is this organisation, or that organisation comes straight out of "cultism 101".

And there is a prime example of that error. Whether you are referring to the Catholic Church of Rome, or the "Orthodox" church.

I dont need to read anything like that. I have a copy of the scriptures, and I find the "New Testament/New Covenant" church identified there, and those brothers and sisters have been fellowshipping with one another in regular gatherings for 2000 years now.

Simple fellowships, nothing beyond a localised hierarchy(pastors, teachers, elders, etc), prayer, teaching of the scriptures, the Lords Supper memorial and baptism, strongly evangelistic, etc.

No problem there. The Mormons, JW's, Catholics, Orthodox and the like are not a consideration...for obvious reasons.

All the Baptist fellowshipps I have been a part of were fine. As a pentecostal I would say they should be more welcoming of the "gifts of the Spirit", but they are entitled to their convictions. They proclaim the true gospel and I'm proud to count them as brothers and sisters.

It is. So very clear. I wish those trusting in the traditions of men would come to their senses and come to the scriptures.

In some cases it can have eternal consequences.

God bless,

Mike

 

The word "baptism" simply means "immersion." What was the substance in which you were immersed. Were you were immersed in vinegar, wine, honey, etc. "Baptism for the remission of sins." What were you baptized in? I saw two young men in a mud fight. They both wrestled in the mud. By the time that they had finished they had both been baptized in the mud. That is, they had both been immersed in the mud? Were you one of those? Have you been immersed in the mud. Does immersion in the mud give you remission of sins. The word is immerssion. Baptism means immersion. The substance isn't given is it? We assume it to be water, and the assumption is no doubt correct.

If that assumption is correct, then it is the water that washes away sin. Being immersed in water (not mud, or wine, or honey, or any other such thing) washes away your sin--so you say. The word "baptism" (immersion) is simply the English word that you have dubbed for that rite. But it still means immersion. Being immersed in water does not wash away sin.
Yes, your above quote: "baptism (immersion in water) for the remission of sins is a requirement for salvation under the New Testament," is both heresy and a pagan ritual.

You wouldn't do it? You can say that with a straight face? And in all honesty before God? Recognize that raising false allegations and innuendos in any kind of malicious intent is taken as name-calling. Take a look at a few of your quotes and then tell me honestly that you have never done this:

Let's break it down:
"Repent, and be baptized...for the remission of sins."
The key word here is the prepositon for (eis).
The meaning is baptized on account or because of the remission of sins.

Mat.3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance:
--The word "unto" is "eis" the same as is used in Acts 2:38. On what basis did John baptize? On the basis that they had repented of their sins, or on the basis that they would repent of their sins. "unto repentance" means what? because of? or in order to receive? Obviously it does not mean "in order to receive" as some would have us to believe in Acts 2:38. John did not baptize in order that they would receive repentance. No, he baptized because they had already repented (unto, for) repentance. The same was true in Acts 2:38 when Peter said "baptism for the remission of sins" (on the basis of remission of sins, or because their sins had been remitted; not in order that their sins would be remitted.
This is the meaning of the verse. Compare Scripture with Scripture. Know how different prepositions can be used.

Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
This was the Lord's command to Saul. He is rehearshing his testimony of his conversion to Christ that happened back in Acts 9. But what happened. Saul was on the way to Damascus. He saw a great light and fell down from his horse. He heard a voice from heaven. It was Jesus, who identified himself as such. Paul called him Lord, for the first time in his life, recognizing him as Lord over his life. It was at that time that "he called upon the name of the Lord and was saved," as the Scripture says. Now as a believer God commands him to go to Annanias and be baptized. The KJV in this translation is a bit weak. There are many other good translations which translate the phrase: "after having called on the name of the Lord." Jamieson, Faucett and Brown says:

And so? This has nothing to do with baptism, but rather living the Christian life. You point is, well briefly put: non sequitor.

</font>[/QUOTE]The offered verses of Scripture prove that it is not. If you'd like to show from Scripture that it is pagan in origin, do so.[/qb][/quote]
700 years before the time of Christ Jeremiah mocked at this pagan ritual.

Jeremiah 2:22 For though thou wash thee with lye, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith the Lord Jehovah.
--Go ahead, he says: Take as much water as you want. Take a lot of soap and the most powerful type of lye (nitre) that you can find. Scrub hard. But as hard as you can scrub, and as much as you can wash; and as many times as you baptize yourself, you will never wash away your sins. Water does not wash away your sins.

1 John 1:7 but if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

Why not just accept what the Bible says?

You have not demonstrated from that text even once how a person can commit the sin of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit today. You have failed to do this using that passage of Scripture. You bring in baptism, but baptism is not in that passage, and has nothing to do with blasphemy of any kind. Baptism is simply a work of man, a work of obedience, but a work of man nevertheless. Man does it not God. So what work of God is accredited to Satan? You haven't demonstrated this yet. Stick to the passages in Mark and Matthew, and show how one today can commit this sin of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. I challenge you. You haven't done it. And thus, an apology is still outstanding.

But I have. You just don't want to accept it. Water doesn't wash away sin. It is a pagan supersition that even Jeremiah mocked at. Baptism simply means immersion. Were you immersed in mud or what. If you were immersed in water, then it is the water, that you claim gave you remission of your sins. Don't be so naive in this. We don't have to play a game of semantics.

You have accused me of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit for no reason at all. You hold a paganistic religious view that cannot be substantiated through Scripture. And you want a retraction for what again??

I haven't seen any Scripture yet, only a couple verses that you took out of context. I explained them so that you could understand them. When the Bible, the entire Bible, all 66 Books, thunders forth a theme of justification through faith alone, how dare you add the work of man, when the Bible explicityly says "not of works." You have contradicted the Word of God and fallen into blatant heresy.

I have.
DHK

[ July 11, 2005, 03:22 AM: Message edited by: DHK ]

 

DHK,

Okay, hang on a minute. I think we need to make our positions clear, though I'm sure we both think we already have. Regardless, we are getting nowhere. So let's back up a minute.

For my part, I hold that immersion in water under the New Testament of Jesus Christ (baptism) is for the remission, or washing away of sins. This is not equivilant to saying that water washes away sin. As you pointed out, 1 John 1:7, and Rev 1:5 make it clear that it is the blood of Christ that washes away sin. No problem with that. I have never once suggested that water washes one free from sin.

Similarly, water cannot wash one free of leprosy. Remember Naaman in 2 Kings 5? He was a leper, and had no cure. Doubtless he had tried in vain to wash away the infection with water. But what was he instructed to do?

Elisha told him to "Go, and wash in Jordan seven times, and they flesh shall come again to thee, and thou shalt be clean" (2 Kings 5:10).

It didn't make sense to him, and he got angry. But one of his servants spoke to him, and he did as he was told, "...and dipped himself seven times in Jordan, according to the saying of the man of God: and his flesh came again like unto the flesh of a little child, and he was clean" (2 Kings 5:14).

There was no power in the water of Jordan or anywhere else that could have healed his leprosy. The power was in God, and was accessed by obeying God's command, even though it didn't make sense.

Likewise, when one obeys the gospel command to be baptized for the remission of sins, he does not trust in the water. His faith is in the operation of God (Col 2:12).

That's trusting God, my friend. Doing what He commands, even though it doesn't make sense.

DHK, I don't dislike you. You get under my skin a little, and I'm sure I do yours, as well. My hope in writing this post is that you will understand my position better, and in so doing, we might understand each other better.

If I owe you an apology and a retraction, I don't have a problem with doing it. But with my present understanding of your position, I'm afraid the charge will stand. It's not personal.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

"God's word does not require divine intervention for us to understand it. Never has, never will."

Why are there 100's of denominations?

 

Billwald,

bmerr here. Although I'm sure some would say I'm guilty of it too, I'd have to say doctrinal bias in the interpretation of Scripture has led to the vast sea of denominationalism.

The problem with the idea that the Holy Spirit has to help us understand the Bible starts with salvation. Consider this.

If man is unable to understand Scripture unless he's saved and has the help of the Holy Spirit, but the same man can't get the Holy Spirit to help him understand the Scriptures until he's saved, how then can he understand to believe and thereby be saved?

This is the dilemma the Calvinist is in, whether he knows it or not.

If, on the other hand, if the only requirement for a proper understanding of Scripture is for man to have an honest and good heart (mind) (Luke 8:15), then anyone with such an attitude toward the Bible can be saved when he hears the gospel and obeys it.

Of course, most anyone will claim to approach the Bible with an unbiased mind, but not many do.

The question is, if Biblical evidence refutes my bias, will I be willing to give up my bias for the Biblical evidence? Or will I attempt to explain away the evidence to maintain my bias?

Those are the only two ways to deal with "cognitive dissonance".

In Christ,

bmerr

 

Let's break it down:
"Repent, and be baptized...for the remission of sins."
The key word here is the prepositon for (eis).
The meaning is baptized on account or because of the remission of sins. [/quote]

First of all, you know and I know that eis does not mean on account of or because. EIS is found some 1600 times in the new testament. You cannot find EVEN ONE TRANSLATION THAT TRANSLATES EIS as BECAUSE in ACTS 2:38. In fact, I doubt you could find where eis is ever translated as because. There is a perfectly good greek word that means because of or on account of. That word is "hoti".

In fact the EXACT same phase in the greek (which is translated "for the remission of sins") found in Acts 2:38 is used in MATT 26:28. By your logic, Jesus blood was shed BECAUSE sins had already been forgiven. Scholar after scholar have agreed that eis does not mean because of in Acts 2:38. It takes some heavy duty mental gymnastics to try and change the clear meaning.

By the way, you never have addressed Mark 16:16. Of all the times I have asked about it, you say you can explain it, but you have refused to do so. Does this mean what it says? Was Jesus kidding? A third grader can read and understand this clear teaching. Yes, it would take help to misunderstand this passage.

Also, if there were question as to what baptism was "in", all doubts are removed when we read Acts 8:36 - As they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch said, "Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?"

or

I Pet 3:20-21, "...in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. There is also an antitype which now saves us--baptism..."

or

Eph 5:26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word,


Clearly your biggest hang up with baptism is that Acts 2:38, Mark 16:16, Acts 22:16 and other passages conflict with your understanding of Eph 2:8-9. Acts 2:38 can't mean what it says, so an alternate meaning must be found. Mark 16:16 can't mean what it says, so an alternate meaning must be found.

When you understand that baptism is part of faith, then you don't have to try and explain away the clear teachings, such as in Mark 16:16.

Eph 2:8-9 also make perfect sense.

Baptism is included in faith. The bible even makes this clear.

Gal 3:26-27 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Col 2:12buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

EVERY scripture telling us how we get INTO Christ deals with baptism. You cannot get around this fact.

To call it a pagan ritual is wrong unfounded.

 

mman:

No, that is just what you would like people to believe. Eis has many meanings, and is not confined to the meanings that the COC would like it to have in order for it suit their perverted theology.

Well glory be! You found out this wonderful linguistic truth that in every language there are synonyms. You are learning. Actually the word eis is used 1,773 times to be more precise. Have you checked out the meaning of each time the preposition is used? All 1,773 times? I have a Greek-English Concordance that gives all those meanings, and yes, there are many times where the word is translated with the sense of “because,” or “on the basis of.” Or, do you really think that in Mat.3:11, John baptized that the Pharisees would receive repentance, instead of, because they had already repented? Which way is eis translated in that passage? Answer please.

But we are not here to do gymnastics. There are better places for that. The fact is that the word is used 1,773 times. Just because it is used in Mat.26:28 one way does not require it to be translated the same way in Acts 2:38 the same way. There is such a thing as context. Have you heard of it? Context is important when determining the meaning of a word (especially a preposition).

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

As is seen, Baptism is not part of salvation. This would contradict the direct teaching of every book of the Bible. Baptism is the fruit or evidence of salvation, but has nothing to do with salvation itself. If one is saved then they will have no problem in obeying Christ and being baptized. But baptism has nothing to do with salvation. What will it do for you? It will get you wet, nothing more.

So what prevented him from being baptized? Two things:
1. Before that time, a lack of sufficient to be immersed in. “See here is water.”
2. A clear testimony of faith in Christ. He was baptized on the basis of his faith in Christ. He was saved by faith and faith alone in the shed blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. Baptism happened after he believed in Christ. There is no more clearer example of that then is demonstrated in Acts 8.

Does an “antitype,” a figure of speech, a symbol, save? Is this what you are saying? That is what Peter is saying. Obviously then Peter is not referring to the act of baptism as giving spiritual salvation. Your hermeneutics is badly wanting. Symbols don’t and cannot save. So in the context how were 8 souls saved? Did water save them? No the water would have destroyed them. It was an agent of destruction that destroyed everything in sight. What saved Noah and his family was the Ark, symbolic of Christ. They were safe in the Ark, which floated above the waters, and was in the midst of the waters as they fell from Heaven. But it was the Ark that saved. It is Christ that saves. It saved them from the pollutions of the water.
What is Peter saying? Christ saves.

1 Peter 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

Christ saves us by His resurrection. Look carefully at the verse. It is our answer to his sacrificial work that saves us. Peter makes sure you understand this point. It is not the putting away of the filth of the flesh. That was the result of the water. What happened with the flood? It took away the filth of the flesh. It destroyed. Baptism is only symbolic of what Christ does by the power of his resurrection. Baptism is symbolic of the old life that is buried under the flood, and a new life that is risen with Christ. We are saved by the resurrection. It is our answer to that resurrection, to that sacrifice that saves us. Baptism is a symbol, an antitype. Symbols don’t save.

First Paul is speaking to the church, not the COC. You are out of luck here. In fact it is specifically addressed to the Church which is at Ephesus, not even any of the COC churches.
Second, don’t read more into the passage then is warranted. Paul is drawing a picture and using a parallel between the marriage of two believers and the marriage of Christ to his bride. Not everything is going to fit word for word, or object for object. The picture Paul draws is the bride being prepared for the groom. She will be completely set apart and cleansed. In ancient Jewish ceremonies the Jews had a number of purifications that they went through. But the main agent here that does the cleansing is the Word of God. “Ye are clean through the Word which I have spoken unto you” Jesus said. Nothing is said here of baptism. If you say that baptism is in this passage you are reading into the passage something that is not there. NOTE: It does not say baptism. Baptism is not in this passage. The Bible does not teach Baptismal regeneration. This is heresy. It is a pagan ritual.

I know what these passages teach; apparently you don’t. You give them a cultish meaning, and teach a pagan superstition that Hindus believe—that water washes away sin. This is superstition. Water cannot wash away sin. Only the blood of Christ can wash away your sin. (1John 1:7).

I don’t explain it away; but I did explain it. That is something that you cannot successfully accomplish and harmonize with Eph.2:8,9 at the same time.

To me it does. It teaches that baptism is a work; a work of man. Salvation is not of works. Therefore the teaching of COC is absolute damnable heresy.

Your statement doesn’t even make sense. Faith is trust, belief, confidence in the word of another. If I have trust in my wife, does that mean I have “baptism” in her? How ridiculous a statement!! It doesn’t even make sense to say that it is included in faith. Your problem is that you don’t know what faith is.

We are children of God through faith in Christ. What is the teaching here. That by faith and faith alone we are saved and made children of God. Paul follows that statement up saying that those that are saved are baptized (at the point of salvation) into Christ. That is the time when a person is indwelt with the Holy Spirit. It is speaking of the baptism of the Spirit, not water baptism.

It is totally symbolic. Paul gives a picture of the believer’s life in Christ through baptism. Our old life is buried, and our life now in Christ is raised that we may walk with Him.

Every Scripture tells a picture of how our old lives are dead to sin, and our new lives are risen with Christ to walk in newness of life. Not one reference speaks of baptism saving or washing away sins. That is both heresy and superstition.

I call it for what it is. Damnable heresy; pagan ritual; a rite that will lead people straight to Hell when thought of as part of their salvation.
DHK

 

No, eis is always looking forward, never in retrospect. You do not like it, so you want it to point backwards. You want the exact same phrase, “eis aphesin hamartion” to have two totally different meanings. The term, “for the remission of sins” is always used in conjunction with baptism, with the exception in Matt 26:28. There is nothing in the context that suggests that the meaning is different in Matt 26:28 and Acts 2:38.

Again, not one translation ever translates eis as “because” in Acts 2:38. I challenge you to find one time where it is. If eis and hoti are synonyms, then of the 1773 times eis is used, you should have quite a few times where “eis” is actually translated as “because”. Show me where eis is translated as “because”, since they are synonyms, as you claim. I say this is a baseless false claim, and challenge you to prove me wrong.

Was John’s baptism because people’s sins were already forgiven? Was Jesus blood shed because people’s sins were already forgiven? These use the exact same phrase as is used in Acts 2:38.

The real question is what is the meaning of “eis aphesin hamartion”. Quite simply you want it to mean one thing in Acts 2:38 and something totally different in Matt 26:28. Any argument for “eis” meaning because in Acts 2:38 also applies to Matt 26:28. Your only objection to this is to say it doesn’t. There is nothing in the context to suggest they have different meanings.

So, you did have to have help to misunderstand Mark 16:16. Basically your (or Steadman’s) argument is Jesus didn’t mean what he said. That is the weakest argument I have ever seen or heard. Mark 16:16 IS TOTALLY SUPPORTED WITH THE REST OF SCRIPTURE. If you would accept Mark 16:16 as truth, I think you would be surprised how all the other pieces fall perfectly into place.

I think Jesus meant exactly what he said in such simple terms that the conclusion is obvious, therefore it takes much twisting to try and explain it away.

Mark 16:16 - He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

Why not accept that baptism if for (eis – unto) 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?

You do not accept these clear teaching, but must twist them and try to explain them away. No matter how much you would like for them to be removed or re-worded, they remain.

So, when I believe Jesus when he said “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved - Mark 16:16” I am believing a “Damnable heresy; pagan ritual; a rite that will lead people straight to Hell when thought of as part of their salvation”. I believe Jesus and not your false teaching. Teaching that one is justified by “faith alone” is a damnable heresy according to James 2:24.

If one is actually justified by faith alone, then all who have faith will be saved, regardless of what was added. I have faith, yet you would hate to admit I am saved. I believe I am justified by faith (biblical faith), yet you wouldn’t want to admit that I am. You think I teach something that will lead people straight to hell, yet Jesus taught that it leads to heaven. If one is justified by belief alone, for you to be consistent, you must think that I am saved, since I believe.

By your definition of faith, the wall of Jericho would still be standing (Heb 11:30). You cannot fit your definition of faith into Heb 11:30. By faith the wall fell down. By faith alone, the walls fell down? No. By belief alone, the walls fell down? No. By faith, the walls fell down. Without this type of faith, it is IMPOSSIBLE to please God. Your definition of faith and God’s definition of faith are different. Use your definition of faith and show how the wall fell by faith alone. When you understand this simple concept, you can understand how “For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many (just as many, no more or no less) of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. – Gal 3:26-27.

 

You are answering a question with a question. In other words you have avoided answering the question completely. Let me state it again. Was John's Baptism because the people had repented or in order to receive repentance? Answer the question. Which one?
DHK

 

You have failed to show how this text relates to today. How does a person today commit blasphemy of the Holy Spirit? You have accused me of such without demonstrating how I have committed such a sin. I am still awaiting your answer from the passages in Matthew and/or Mark. Where are they, or where is your apology?
DHK

 

Thayer on page 94 in his lexicon says, "That the phrase 'eis metonoia', for repentance or unto repentance, is to mark the end, to bind one to repentance". John's baptism was into the kind of life to which the people were obligated by their repentance. This is clearly seen back in verse 8 where he commanded them to bring forth fruit meet for repentance. Once again the eis points forward and not backwards as you would have it to do.

This is a clear attempt at grapsing at staws, when the obvious conclusion to Acts 2:38 and Mark 16:16 is the correct conclusion. Isn't that the way it usually works? The obvious conclusion is the correct conclusion.

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?

If you were to remove your prior teaching and start with a clean slate when you read, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he that believeth not, shall be condemned", what would be your conclusion?

Instead of trying to explain this verse away, you accept it for what it says.

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?

Show me how the wall of Jericho can fall by your definition of faith.

Show me how Noah can prepare an Ark by faith, using your definition.

With your ability and knowledge, just think how strong an agrument you could make for eis meaning "into" or in order to obtain, in Acts 2:38. If you were to do that, I am certain it would be exceedingly better than your attempt to explain it away. I for one, would love to see that.

 

Thayer on page 94 in his lexicon says, "That the phrase 'eis metonoia', for repentance or unto repentance, is to mark the end, to bind one to repentance". John's baptism was into the kind of life to which the people were obligated by their repentance. This is clearly seen back in verse 8 where he commanded them to bring forth fruit meet for repentance. Once again the eis points forward and not backwards as you would have it to do.

This is a clear attempt at grapsing at staws, when the obvious conclusion to Acts 2:38 and Mark 16:16 is the correct conclusion. Isn't that the way it usually works? The obvious conclusion is the correct conclusion. </font>[/QUOTE]You have not directly answered my question, have you? You have evaded it. All your theology will fall if you answer that question correctly. Because you refuse I will answer it for you. John baptized "unto" repentance, or because they had repented. He would not have baptized an unrepentant Jew. He demanded that they bring forth "fruit fruit fit for repentance." Otherwise he would not baptize them. "On the basis of" or "Because of" their repentance he would baptize them. It is a very simple passage to understand. But you won't admit this because it absolutely devastates almost everything that you have posted.

Prepositions do not have future and past tense. Don't deceive people with this malarkey. They are prepositions, not verbs with different tenses. Acts 2:38 uses the word eis which in the KJV is translated "for." A KJVO would have a heyday with you.

Example:
I went to the store "for" (in order to obtain) a carton of milk.

I went to the store for (on behalf of, or because of) a friend).
I went to the store for a friend for some milk for his friend for some milk for another of his friends for some more mild for another friend for yet more milk for yet another friend for still more milk for still another friend...
I hope you get the idea.
The word "for" has more than one meaning (because being one of them) as does the word "eis").

John 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
--The word "on" is eis.
Do they not believe ON Christ because of what He has said, and done, and because of who he is?
The meaning of eis is obvious. It means because. Because of who Christ is, they believed. That is what Christ was inviting them to do.

All your arguments are destroyed because you fail to answer this one question about John baptizing because of repentance. It is too bad you cannot see such a simple thing.
DHK

 

Yes, I answered your question, but you did not like the answer. You have not even attempted to answer any of my questions. I suspect I know why.

You are the one evading questions. By your logic, Jesus' blood was shed because people's sins had already been forgiven. You grasps at straws trying to convince yourself and others that you are right. You cannot accept the clear teaching of the scriptures, but resort to name calling.

The real Greek scholars are not on your side. Not one translation ever translates eis as “because” in Acts 2:38. I challenge you to find one time where it is. If eis and hoti are synonyms, then of the 1773 times eis is used, you should have quite a few times where “eis” is actually translated as “because”. Show me where eis is translated as “because”, since they are synonyms, as you claim. I say this is a baseless false claim, and challenge you to prove me wrong.

The real question is what is the meaning of “eis aphesin hamartion”. It either means, "in order to obtain the remission of sins" or "because your sins have already been forgiven." Those are the only two options as I see it. Quite simply you want it to mean one thing in Acts 2:38 and something totally different in Matt 26:28. Any argument for “eis” meaning because in Acts 2:38 also applies to Matt 26:28, since there is nothing in the context to suggest they have different meaning.

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.

Now look at the phrase "for a carton of milk".

If I had another sentence, "My father gave me some money "for a carton of milk".

In both instances, the action was done in order to obtain a carton of milk, not because they already had a carton of milk.

This is the blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many "for the remission of sins". - Matt 26:28

Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus "for the remission of sins". - Acts 2:38

Both actions are so that people can obtain the remission of sins, not because their sins are already forgiven.


You have continually evaded the following. 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?

Your previous explanition said "what Jesus means" implies that it means something other than the obvious meaning in the passage. In other words, it doesn't mean what it says it means this....

Show me how the wall of Jericho can fall by your definition of faith.

Show me how Noah can prepare an Ark by faith, using your definition of faith.

 

Perhaps because it was neither logical nor Scriptural. It is absurd to think that the entire theology of the COC hinges on a three letter Greek prepositon. Just think. If you are wrong in your interpretation of that one preposition, your entire theology is washed down the drain and into the garbage where it belongs. Baptismal regeneration is just that. And yet you conveniently ignore the arguments I have clearly set before you and try to go off on other rabbit trails, by asking other unrelated questions which BTW have already been answered.

What do you suspect? That I have already answered them in previous posts. You would be right if that is what you suspect. Secondly, is that I will not even bother to read any of what you have written unti you give suitiable answers to the one main topic of the last two or three posts, i.e. Did not John baptize because of those that had alreadly repented, or in order that they might receive repentance? Which one? Why do you beat around the bush? Why can't you give a clear answer? "I suspect I know why."

Heresy. By my logic the blood of Jesus Christ washes away all sin, of those who believe on Christ.
By your logic, water some how superstitiously washes away sin (as Pagan Hindus believe) for all those who believe that baptism is a part of salvation (as the COC). We call that damnable heresy.

Calling the kettle black?
I have been accused of attributing the work of God to Satan.
I have been accused of blashpemy of the Holy Spirit.
I have been accused of many other things that are totally unwarranted, none of which can be proven through Scripture. That falls under the category of false accusations and name-calling. A blasphemer is a serious charge.
Clean up your own act first before making such charges.

I take that to mean the "real" "COC" scholars? Otherwise you are wrong.

I have already answered that challenge, you do not accept my answer.

Quite simply put, you are diverting this discussion away from Mat.3:11 again. Did John baptize because they had repented? Yes or No?

You are wrong. The Greek obviously does support; you don't. You blindly do not want to accept the evidence given in Mat.3:11 neither in John 7:38.

John 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
--on means "because of"

You failed to see the point or deliberately confused it. Let me put it plainly so you can see it.
I went to the store for a friend.
I went to the store because of a friend.
for = because of.
Does that make it plain enough. The word "for" also may take on the meaning of "because of" just as the word "eis" also can.

Again it is so pitiful that a cult has to establish its entire religion on one three letter preposition in just one verse in the Bible. Everything that they believe hangs on just that one word. How pitiful.
DHK

 

If you think my entire theology is washed down the drain, you obviously have a shallow understanding of what I believe the bible teaches.

You are the one trying to force me down a rabbit trail. You want to look at one word in the phrase, I want to look at the entire phase “eis aphesin hamartion”. . The entire phase is always used only in conjuction with baptism, with the one exception in Matt 26:28. That is what is important, not your preceived notion that, 1 or possibly 2 times of the more than 1700 times it is used, that eis might possibly mean because. Then you try to go to the english to prove your point.

Where is the word eis used in Mark 16:16? Where is the word eis used in Acts 22:16? Where is the word eis used in I Pet 3:21? Isn't the logical conclusion of these verses that baptism is tied to salvation and the washing away of our sins. Again, you will have to have help to misunderstand these passages.

I don't believe you have to be a greek scholar to understand God's word. Yes, you can have a better understanding, but it is not required.

The scholars I referenced are those who translated the various versions. No, they were not all members of the church. They had various backgrounds. NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM TRANSLATE EIS AS BECAUSE IN ACTS 2:38. Those are the scholars I reference. In fact, you would be hard pressed to find where eis is ever translated as because.

John's baptism is different than what is in effect today. His was unto repentance not because of repentance.

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?

No, you don't have to be a Greek scholar to understand the bible.

I am not a Greek scholar. I am a pitiful Greek student. I am not a preacher, I am just a Christian.

I believe Jesus meant exactly what he said in Mark 16:16, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he that believeth not shall be condemned."

I believe any third grader can read and understand exactly what this says.

And for the record, I have never read a reply to any of the following questions on this or any other posts. I have asked them repeatedly, yet you refuse to answer, or I have missed your answer.

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?

Show me how the walls of Jericho can fall by your definition of faith. (Heb 11:30)

Show me how Noah can prepare an Ark by faith, using your definition of faith.(Heb 11:7)

THAT IS A FALSE CLAIM, I challenge you to ever find where I stated that the power is in the water or that the water superstitiously washes away ours sins. As a moderator, I think you should know better. You either misunderstand or are willingly trying to misrepresent.

So you will not be confused, there is no power in the water. The power is in the blood. In another post, I clearly laid out how we come in contact with the blood, using the scriptures. NOBODY PRESENTED ANY OTHER OPTION USING SCRIPTURE, they only threw rocks and chaff.

Was there any power in the water when Naaman dipped 7 times in the Jordan river or was the power in God? When was Naaman cleased? He had to be reminded that it wasn't hard, he just had to wash and be cleansed. Just because God uses water does not mean the power is in the water. The power is in God and the blood of Christ. Just because God, through the prophet told Naaman to wash and be clean or God, through Ananias, told Saul to be baptized and wash away your sins, does not mean the power is in the water. It is in God who gave the instructions.

If the power were in the water, we wouldn't need the blood of Christ. We are baptized INTO his death (Rom 6:3-4). You cannot show how we come in contact with his death, if you exclude baptism. That is where his blood flowed. His blood was shed "for the remission of sins". Peter told those believers in Acts 2 to repent and be baptized "for the remission of sins." We are baptized into Christ (Gal 3:26-27, Rom 6:3-4). From the scriptures, you can only find one way into Christ. It is only in Christ where we have redemption by the blood (Eph 1:7). God is the one working, not us, according to Col 2:12. Baptism is faith on our part (Col 2:12, Gal 3:26-27).

Now you claim Jesus blood cleans "all those who believe in Chirst". If that were the case, then those in Acts 2:47 were cleansed when they believed which was before they repented. They obviously were believers who were cut to the heart. 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?

If baptism is for (unto and not because of) the remission of sins, does if fit with other passages that deal directly with baptism?

Does that fit perfectly with Mark 16:16, He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved? (No explanitions required)
Does that fit perfectly with Acts 22:16, be baptized and wash away your sins? (No explanitions required)
Does that fit perfectly with I Pet 3:21, baptism doth now also save us? (No explanitions required)
Does that fit perfectly with Rom 6:3-4, Baptized into Christ Jesus, baptized into his death, raised to walk in newness of life? (No explanitions required)
Does that fit perfectly with Gal 3:26-27, For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ? (No explanitions required)

Once you adjust your defintion of faith, to the biblical definition of faith, everything fits. Until that time, you have to explain away the clear passages that deal with baptism that require help to misunderstand them.

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he that believeth not shall be condemned -Mark 16:16

This verse tells us what it takes to be saved and what it takes to be condemned. What is the result of not believing it?

 

That's all you have to admit isn't it. It was unto repentance.
unto = because of
"unto" is the word "eis"

 

DHK,

bmerr here. Are you KIDDING???? Do you honestly believe that "unto" means "because of"?

So should we read the Great Invitation in Matt 11:28 as "Come because of me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest"?

That doesn't even make sense, in any language.

John preached "...the baptism of repentance for (unto-marginal reading) the remission of sins" (Mark 1:4).

Those who were convinced of their sinfulness, and were repentant were to be baptized for the remission of sins.

Some who attended his baptism were not repentant, but had questions about who he was and why he was baptizing (John 1:19-25).

John undoubtably drew a crowd. Luke records those who came to be baptized of him being told to "bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance..." (Luke 3:8). They asked him what they should do, and were given instructions on repentance in Luke 3:11-14.

John taught, in effect, that baptism without repentance would be ineffectual (John 3:7-14).

So it was not a baptism toward repentance and the remission of sins, but baptism (because) of repentance for (toward, unto, the end result being) the remission of sins.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

mman,

bmerr here. Welcome back, brother.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

Still waiting for a response to the details in Acts 10 that seem to refute all that is being said about forgiveness and the new birth not being available prior to water Baptism.

Regardless of the "strategy" God was using for the Jews - the question remains. Are the GIFTS of the Holy Spirit (1Cor 12) for believers or unbelievers? Are they for the born-again or for the unsaved?

If they are for the saved - the born again -- then you have a problem in Acts 10 trying to say that Cornelius AND his household were all unforgiven -- yet filled with the Spirit and given the 1Cor 12 Gifts - do you not?

Was it at his baptism?

Can one be a SAVED - FORGIVEN SAINT without being in the New Covenant or being a new creation or being born again??

Is John 3 part of the New Testament?

Was Jesus lying to Nicodemus in John 3?

Was the incident in John 3 "before the Cross"?

Did Jesus say "Some day in the future the spirit will move upon the heart of a person and they will be born again according to the new rules about which a Jewish teacher of scripture would not heave any information because all you have is scripture"??

So then he was "lying to Nicodemus" ??

</font>[/QUOTE]