See the bolded part: You have that right. If a person really believes that throwing water on an baby, or dunking a baby, will save it from hell, that person had better set out to apply that water to every baby he sees!
An Ongoing Study/Debate of the New Testament
Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Wittenberger, Sep 10, 2012.
Page 2 of 12
-
-
The way the sentence is constructed, the forgiveness of sins is brought about by repentance, not by baptism; therefore, baptism is a sign-symbol and public testimony of that fact.
Clear now? :) -
Thinkingstuff Active Member
-
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Hence, baptism is for the repentant only. That "fruit" of repentance was manifested in their confession of sins - confession of sins is fruit of a repentant heart.
Again, the logical order is that John first preached the gospel to the crowd - the gospel he himself defines in John 3:36. The crowd that received his gospel responded by lining up to be baptized by him. As they came to him they made this public confession of their previous response to the gospel and based upon that manifest fruit - he administered baptism. This is the very same practice as Baptists do to this very day.
Hence, we know that "for" repentance cannot have any other meaning in regard to the baptism of John than because of as repentance ALWAYS precedes baptism whenever it is joined with baptism in every other place in scripture the order is repent/beleive and be baptized. This fact cannot be disputed if the evidence is objectively weighed and accepted.
Now we come to the words "for the remission of sins" and the issue is whether God remits sins due to repentance or due to the administration of an external ordinance or due to the combination.
I believe the overall Biblical context is that literal remission of sins ALWAYS occurs at the point of repentant faith in the gospel (Acts 10:43) but ordinances provide an external sign of what the candidate already "had" literally received previous to the submission to the ordinance (Rom. 4:6-11). Paul makes this clear that this is the UNIVERSAL truth for all who are of faith.
Thus baptism does remit sins, saves, regenerates symbolically (as did circumcision in the example of Abraham) but it is at the point of regenerative/repentant/faith in the gospel that literally remission of sins occurs. I believe that Paul's theological exposition on this very point in Romans 4:5-11 cannot be successfully overturned and that it is expressly applied UNIVERSALLY to Old and New Testament saints or ALL WHO ARE OF FAITH. -
The Apostle Peter in Acts 2:38-40 did not say "For the promise is to you and ALL children..."
He said, "for the promise is to you and YOUR children..." -
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
As I said before, thank goodness we have Brother Biblicist and his superior knowledge of Greek for us to finally learn the true Word of God!
All of our Bibles are riddled with paedobaptist mistranslations. Let's just put them up on the shelf and go to a purer source of God's Holy Word: Dr. Strong's Theological writings or the writings of other Baptist theologians.
The common man cannot trust the English Bible. But we can trust Baptist theologians, because Baptists have always held the truth since the Apostles and during their 1,500 years hiding out in yet undiscovered caves under Catholic persecution. :) -
What????
He is talking about repentance, baptism, and receiving the Holy Spirit!!!!
The crowd had just asked "what shall we do?". Peter is answering their question. You are really stretching things brother to make this passage be about Jewish children and speaking in tongues!!
Believe the simple, literal meaning of the Bible! Don't re-intepret it because it doesn't fit with your doctrine! -
-
-
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Thinkingstuff Active Member
-
And I look forward to meeting you in heaven one day, if not here. -
I left it off because we are talking about "children".
Here is the whole verse: "For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself."
Let's dissect this verse:
What is the promise? Verse 33 tells us: the promise of the Holy Spirit
Who is "you"? The crowd of Jews and Jewish proselytes to whom Peter is speaking.
Who are "your children"? The children of the Jews and the Jewish proselytes to whom Peter is speaking.
Who are those that are "far off"? This term is used in several other locations of the NT referring to Gentiles.
So is the promise of the Holy Spirit to ALL Jews and Jewish proselytes and ALL their children and ALL Gentiles??
No: the promise is only for "everyone who the Lord our God calls to himself".
Only the Elect, those predestined and called by God, will receive the promise of the Holy Spirit. -
I want your "gloves" off, though, brother. I want you to give my your best shot to knock down my beliefs. My Baptist family members refuse to debate me, so I am very appreciative of the opportunity to debate and study Scripture with a Baptist pastor. -
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
However, what you and Michael are doing is called "slander" by inferring that someone has done this when in fact it has not been done.
The truth is that the Scriptures clearly speaks of "another Jesus" and "another gospel" and such cannot save anyone. Both sides should obviously accept that any profession that was based upon what the scriptures call "another gospel" or "another Jesus" cannot possibly save anyone as it is not a matter of different langauge as both claim it is the "gospel" and both claim salvation in "Christ" but the meaning and application of such common language. The Mormon uses the same langauge in their profession of faith "I have trusted in Christ as my Savior" but obviously defines the terms that promote different concepts.
Another obvious is that we both believe that we do not teach the same doctrine of salvation and one of us must be wrong as our views are contradictiory and yet we use the same terms. There are not TWO ways of savlation, TWO gospels and thus at least one of us is wrong and IF our profession of faith was based upon the definitive gospel we are now both presenting then someone is lost regardless of profession.
OR
As I have stated about both you and Michael that you may both be saved but led astray. However, will you both concede that MAY be my condition as well in spite of repudiating the gospel I not only base my salvation upon but am defending???
HOWEVER
I do base my whole salvation and eternal future on the gospel I am defending. So how can you possibly accept that I am saved if no other doctrine of salvation has been embraced but the one I am defending?
CONCLUSIVELY
My position toward you is far more generous than the position you must embrace toward me since my defense does indeed match my profession of salvation. -
We all should be more careful with our choice of words. Again I apologize to you for attempting humor that came across as demeaning ridicule. It was inappropriate and wrong. -
Next Passage in our ongoing Study:
Mark 1:8-11
English Standard Version (ESV)
8 I have baptized you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”
The Baptism of Jesus
9 In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10 And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. 11 And a voice came from heaven, “You are my beloved Son;[a] with you I am well pleased.”
Footnotes:a.Mark 1:11 Or my Son, my (or the) Beloved
This is Mark's account of Christ's baptism. Again, I think the wording indicates that Christ was immersed. It is interesting to me that in verse 8 there is no mention of "fire" as there was in Matthew. -
Thinkingstuff Active Member
So I believe you are a bit off base with your post. -
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
For example, I have met some extremely nice and sincere Mormons and JW's who confess "I believe in Christ as my Savior" but when they explain their Christ, he in no way remembles the Christ of Scripture. When they explain their "salvation", their "gospel" their "saved" their "grace" it does not resemblance anything in scripture although the same terms are used to express both their profession and my profession.
The SAME is true in regard to Roman Catholicism and the Baptist profession - same terms but entirely different meanings. Their "gospel" is not my "gospel" and their "Jesus" is not my Jesus and their "salvation" and "saved" is not my "salvation" and "Saved."
If you accept the fact of "tares" in the kingdom (Mt. 13) then you must accept the fact of false professors.
Page 2 of 12