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

Is the ESV identical in wording to the KJV? If the KJV did not contain any error than why did anyone make any other English version after the KJV????? Why do 200 plus English Versions exist if none of them contain error in the opinions of those who published the new ones????

That is merely one step in the process of obtaining the right interpretation but not the only one. If you do not adhere to Biblical based principles of interpretation you will have as much trouble with the Greek text as you do with the English text.

It is not a matter of "trust" but a matter of Biblical data and contextual based evidence. The immediate context of Matthew 3:11 and the overall biblical context where baptism and repentance are mentioned together absolutely forbid that "eis" means "in order to" if "repentance" is the object of the preposition as in Matthew 3:11! Such an interpretation totally repudiates the explanation of John in Matthew 3:8 that the "fruits" of repentance must precede baptism and thus repentance must precede its fruits. Such an interpretation reverses the Biblical order in ever other Biblical context where repent always precedes baptism. This is irrefutable evidence that "eis" cannot possibly be interpreted as "in order to" in Matthew 3:11.

According to this line of logic then you have no basis to disagree with any doctrine the Greek Orthodox Church embraces as they speak and use Greek. Do you really think their paedobaptist doctrinal bias does not affect their interpretations of scriptures?????

First, you are making a specific case (the meaning of eis in a specific limited context) into a universal declaration that demands the entire English translation is untrustworthy! I never made that charge at all. I can disagree with specific instances in a translation without discarding the trustworthiness of the entire translation.

You are building a straw man! You are providing to FALSE options! There is a third option and it is the option I have been making the case for all along. The third option is CONTEXTUAL EVIDENCE. I have provided the contextual evidence and YOU NEVER CONFRONT OR RESPOND TO IT! Instead you errect such straw man arguments and false limited alternatives.

So, if you are consistent with this line of reasoning, then every doctrine that the Greeks embrace based upon their interpretation of the Greek text you must also embrace because they know Greek! How do you know they are right and we are wrong? On that kind of speculative reasoning??? I would hate to Pastor people who approach the Bible like you do - what a mess it would be. It would be like the democrats who determine their polices by poll majorities. Can't you see that this approach is not only irrational but clearly unbiblical? Did the Bereans approach Paul's teaching that way?

It is not a matter of understanding the Greek language better than the entire Greek speaking world but a matter of discerning the contextual evidences better since we do not approach the Scriptures with a paedobaptist bias as do the Greeks. It is a matter of the contextual data that they refuse to address JUST LIKE YOU HAVE refused to address honestly and objectively.

No, all three of your guesses are wrong and unncessary speculations for the following reasons:

1. It is the JEWS not the Greeks who wrote the New Testament.

2. You have no first century evidence that the JEWS interpreted "eis" always as a forward look EXCEPT for the context in which they placed it and the contextual evidence repudiates that presumption.

3. Roman Catholic selective history does not support any clear tradition of infant baptism in the first or second century but rather the evidence supports a gradual introduction.

4. I have already admitted that the New Testament does teach that baptism washes away sins, remits sins, regenerates and saves you so how is that an argument against my position?

5. What you have to prove is the contextual evidences I have presented are wrong and that the New Testament teaches that baptism LITERALLY does thee things instead of FIGURATIVELY.

 

The fact remains that not ONE single version of the Bible in any language uses the translation "because of" in the verses under discussion. The Greek Othodox Church is not infallible on doctrine. Their doctrine on works, Purgatory, etc. are all examples of their error.

What we are talking about is the Greek language and the unreasonable, illogical idea that you and your non-Greek Baptist colleagues understand Greek better than the Greeks! You are wrong on this one! Your knowledge of Greek, and that of your Baptist scholar colleagues is not infallible.

Are you telling me that the Jews who wrote the Bible in Greek didn't understand everyday, first century Greek and therefore they possibly used improper Greek in writing the Bible that real Greeks would confuse??? How far must this conspiracy theory go??

I have already told you that, absolutely, a person must bring fruits of repentance PRIOR TO baptism. You keep repeating that as if I am ignoring you. YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT! But here is the point you keep missing: the point isn't that the sinner gives God repentance in his Baptism. The sinner has already repented in his heart prior to baptism, while he was standing on the bank of the Jordan or even when he left his home in Jerusalem! The point is that in Baptism, God grants the sinner's request for salvation, and DUE to his genuine repentance, God grants him the forgiveness of sins at the time of his baptism! Why? You will have to ask God, but He seems to like using visible, tangible outward signs to demonstrate what he is doing internally in a man's heart. It is God who saves during baptism, not the water, and not the repentant sinner's decision to get into the water! For some reason known only to God, he has chosen baptism as the moment in time when he grants forgiveness of sins.

True repentance must ALWAYS precede baptism!

You are the one who is refusing to read these verses in context. You are re-interpreting these verses because, in your opinion, they don't agree with verses that say "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved."! The fact is, though, they DO agree, just not in the preconceived manner that you WANT them to agree.

You can't allow these two verses to mean what they literally say in every modern English translation of the Bible, including the Kiing James, because to believe them literally, to accept that the Greeks really do understand their own language, to finally admit that there is no 2,000 year old, world-wide paedobaptist conspiracty to suppress the "true Gospel" would destroy your carefully crafted theology! That is the real reason you can't admit you are wrong on the interpretation of the Greek word "eis", my brother!

You accuse me of creating strawmen, but your argument is circular. What you are really saying is this: "I can't believe the literal interpretation and translation of these verses because they are not congruent with my interpretation of the rest of the Bible, so since they don't agree with my interpretation, which is so glaringly obvious to me and to other "truly Spirit-filled" Christians like me, these verses must be misinterpreted. Therefore, God did NOT preserve his Word for the last 2,000 years. I and my Baptist colleagues had to help God out and rediscover the true Word of God in the 1900's, early 2,000's in the only correctly translated version of the Bible, the Landmark KJV!!!

 

Next passage of Scripture. I will give my comments tomorrow. You are welcome to start.


Matthew 11:25-30

English Standard Version (ESV)


Come to Me, and I Will Give You Rest

25 At that time Jesus declared, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; 26 yes, Father, for such was your gracious will.[a] 27 All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. 28 Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”

Footnotes:a.Matthew 11:26 Or for so it pleased you well


















<<


<


=
=


>


>>

 

repeat message

 

As before indicated the Tyndale Version uses the equivilent of "because of" when it says repentance was a "token of". There are over 200 English versions and neither one of us has verified one way or the other that all 200 English versions have or have not! Another speculative comment.

Again, as I will demonstrate below you are completely abusing the immediate and overall context.

Then why in the world do you depend upon the line of reasoning that they know the Greek and so that makes it final for you???????

You admit their knowledge of Greek does not keep them from other obvious errors of interpretation and yet you turn around and argue their knowlege of Greek ALONE on this issue must mean they are right?!?! HOw is that a rational line of reasoning?

Furthermore, knowledge of Greek is not the issue but the contextual evidence for proper interpretation and I will demonstrate below your response is completely contradictory and irrational.

Whoever claimed "infallible" knowledge of Greek? I certainly didn't. I just claimed the contextual evidence in Matthew 3:11 makes your interpretation IMPOSSIBLE. Your response to the evidence below will be shown to be contradictory and completely irrational.

Again, it is a fact that JEWS wrote it. Second, their usage must be determined by their own context and that context makes your interpretation completely absurd and laugable as I will demonstrate below.

No you have not! What you said was there must be a "spirit" of repentance prior to baptism and that is not what the text says or means. To admit a "spirit" of repentance is required prior to baptism is not an admission that repentance occurred before baptism. However, to claim there must be "fruits" of repentance is a claim that not only repentance occurred prior to baptism but there is evidences that it occurred.

Second, that admission makes it IMPOSSIBLE for "eis" in Matthew 3:11 to mean "in order to" with a view to the future because that would be an outright denial that repentance had already occured. You cannot have your cake and eat it too! The immediate and overall context of scripture makes it impossible for Matthew 3:11 to be read and understood to mean "I baptize you IN ORDER TO OBTAIN repentance" but that is precisely what you are arguing for as that would be the meaning of "eis" looking to the future.

The sinner does not give God repentance "in" his baptism but has repented toward God BEFORE he is baptized because it is required as the prerequisite for baptsm to be administered. More about this below.

Matthew 3:11 does not say "baptism eis REMISSION of sins" but "baptism eis REPENTANCE." Do you understand the difference? Your argument for eis demands that it is REPENTANCE that occurs "IN" baptism in Matthew 3:11!!! However, you admit and continue to admit that is false and yet your demand for "eis" to mean with "in order to" in regard to the future demands exactly what you admit to be false!

This is even a greater problem for you! Now you are changing how God has forgiven sins for the past 4000 years! For the past 4000 years God remitted sins prior to any submission to ordinances but immediately at the point of heart repentance and faith and that can be proven by Paul's doctrinal explanation of remission of sins in the case of Abraham whom he sets forth as the example of how God remits sins "FOR ALL WHO ARE OF FAITH" and he did it in an UNCIRCUMCISED condition rather "in" or "at" circumcision which was the external rite that you admit, and all paedobaptists admit was parallel to baptism under the Old Covenant and you try to prove by Col. 2:12.

This view of remission of sins "in" baptism" is completely repudiated by Peter's testimony of the last 4000 years of prophetic preaching of the gospel - Acts 10:43

This view of remission of sins is a completely different gospel than what was preached prior to your interpretation of John's gospel (Heb. 4:2; Gal. 1:8-9; 3:6-8).

You are teaching a doctrine that completely perverts the gospel of Christ for the past 4000 years.

Paul clearly and explicitly repudiates your supersititous interpetation of remission of sins "IN" the administration of divine ordinances (Rom. 4:7-11). He denies it occurs "in" the administration but occurs BEFORE the administration and WITHOUT the administration of divine ordinances.

You are perverting the gospel of Jesus Christ and denying what the scriptures plainly and unequivocally teach to be otherwise.

True remission of sins has ALWAYS occurred at the point of repentance in the heart and NEVER delayed until the administration of an external ordinance - Rom. 4:7-11. External ordinances have NEVER been used by God to LITERALLY remit sins - Heb. 10:1-4 but true remission has ALWAYS occurred at the point of repentant faith in the heart - Acts 10:43; Rom. 10:8-10.

Matthew 3:11 does not say "baptism eis REMISSION of sins" but "baptism eis REPENTANCE." Do you understand the difference? Your argument for eis demands that it is REPENTANCE that occurs "IN" baptism in Matthew 3:11!!! However, you admit and continue to admit that is false and yet your demand for "eis" to mean with "in order to" in regard to the future demands exactly what you admit to be false!

Where is your objectivity to the truth???? ZERO! Out of your own mouth you admit that repentance is required prior to baptism but then again out of your own mouth you demand that "eis" in Matthew 3:11 must be translated "with a view to" or "in order to" which translation denies that repentance occurs prior to baptism but occurs "in" baptism. No one with objectivity could argue like you do and be so blind to what they are saying is a complete contradiction.

You have absolutely no objectivity in this discussion but are hell bent on proving this absurd contradiction as truth regardless of what you must do.

 

Can't you see that your comments on Matthew 3:11 is completely and hoplessly a contradiction?????

On one hand you admit that REPENTANCE must be PRIOR to baptism but on the other hand you demand eis in Matthew 3:11 which is in regard to "REPENTANCE" (not remission of sins) must be translated and understood to mean is yet future "in" the act of baptism and thus cannot occur until "IN" baptism! You cannot have your cake and eat it too! Either repentance occurs BEFORE or it occurs IN baptism. Your demand that "eis" must mean "in order to" with a forward look in Matthew 3:11 demands that "repentance" (which is the object object of the preposition) is the product of baptism rather than the prerequisit for baptism.

If you cannot see this is a hopeless contradiction of your interpretation of "eis" in Matthew 3:11 there is no point in going any further in this conversation as you are completely without any kind of objectivity but are blinded to the obvious truth or hardened in this sin and it is sin of defiance against the truth.

 

The book of Romans is by design an intentional doctrinal presentation. Remission of sins is directly and explicitly addressed in Romans 4:6-11 in regard to its relationship with external divine rites.

Paul explicitly and REPEATEDLY denies that remission of sins occurs IN the act of administration of an external divine rite - vv. 9-12

Paul explicitly and REPEATEDLLY demands that Abraham's PRE-cirucmsion example is true for "ALL WHO ARE OF FAITH" regardless if they are circumcised Jews or uncircumcised gentiles - vv. 11-12

This is a context of doctrinal presentation of this very subject. It is irrefutable IF the immediate context is objectively respected and recognized.

 

To answer the OP: none of us can convince anyone they are a sinner, or wrong about their religion. It takes God showing them. Sure, we can present God's Word to them, but it is God who will drive the nail home, if they are to be convinced about their wrong stance with Him.

 

The whole purpose of John's baptism was to call on people to repent for the coming Messiah. It was a baptism calling for repentance and faith. That is why it is referred to as a baptism FOR repentance.

It was not a Christian baptism.

I'm not going to butt heads with you anymore on this topic. Other readers can decide for themselves who is right. I am moving on to another passage of Scripture. I hope you will come along, brother.

 

You have from the beginning argued that "for" as used in all your chosen translations makes the same point of a FORWARD look you claim "eis" expresses!

You have also admitted that repentance is PRIOR to baptism.

Now which is it in Matthew 3:11? You cannot have it both ways.

John repudiates that repentance occurs as a consequence of baptism in Matthew 3:8.

Acts 2:38 repudiates that repentance follows baptism (this baptism you do recognize as Christian) just as Matthew 3:8 does in what you reject as Christian baptism. Hence, both condemn your intepretation that "eis" in Matthew 3:11 has a forward look to "repentance" as the consequence or result.

The evidence that you are wrong about Matthew 3:11 is clear and obvious but you are just too proud to admit it

Why then do you want me to go forward to another text that you will undoubtedly assume the same arguments??????

Give me one good reason why I should go with you? You are not honest enough to admit your own obvious contradictions in regard to Matthew 3:11. What hope should I have you will be any more objective with any other text of scripture on this subject???

No, I have better things to do than waste my time on someone who claims they are really looking for the truth but deny the truth when it stares them in the face and when they are completely incapable of overturning evidence that is so clear and explicit only a blind man could not see it. Thanks, but no thanks.

P.S. Amazing that Christ and all the apostles submitted to something other than "Christ-ian" baptism and yet there is no record of them being ever rebaptized. More amazing is that the only baptism existent when Christ commanded baptism in the Great Commission was the baptism of John! More amazing that Christ called the baptism of John the "counsel of God" but the counsel was so bad that it had to be ultimately be rejected by all who submitted to it and seek rebaptism but no record of it?????

 

Readers,

My Lutheran friend has said that he is sincere and really looking for the truth and wants me to prove him wrong. I have done that in Matthew 3:11 by any reasonable standard.

However, what amazes me concerning a person who claims he is really looking for the truth is not merely his total and complete disregard for the contextual evidence that completely repudiates his interpretation of Matthew 3:11 but his total disregard for Romans 4:5-12. This is really astonishing! Here is a context where it is the design of Paul to present the correct relationship between remission of sins in connection with the administration of divine rites. IF he were really sincere and really looking for the truth then it is utterly amazing he chooses to ignore any public discussion on such a passage that obviously and openly deals with the very question that divides us!

It is these kind reactions that lead me to think that my Lutheran friend is more like President Obama - He talks a big talk but his actions really reveal the truth.

 

Rom. 4:6 [B]Even as[/B] David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

Paul has made his case concerning the absence of works in the justification by faith of Abraham in verses 1-5. He now introduces a passage from David to reinforce what he just stated in verse 5 concerning Abraham - "even as" David describes.

Here it is the "blessed man" that is being described by David. David says this man is blessed because:

1. Righteosness is imputed to him "without works" - v. 6

2. His inquities are forgiven and covered - v. 7

8. His sin in the future will not be imputed to him - v. 8

Here is Paul's explanation of what Justification by faith before God consists when speaking of Abraham. There is complete satisfaction of both righteousness and sin and that constitutes the "blessed" condition of the justified man.

Now Paul turns to answer the question "HOW" is this blessed condition = justification was obtained by Abraham in verses 9-12 and "WHEN" did it occur. So the "how" and "when" is the explicit subject of these next few verses.

Verses 9-10 present the pertinent questions of "HOW" and "WHEN" it occurred in the life of Abraham:

9 ¶ Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.


The questions of "how" and "when" are considered in the first part of verse 10 whereas the answers are provided in the second half of verse 10 and verses 11-12.

In regard to "when" Paul divides Abrahams life into two categories (1) "in circumcison" or (2) "in uncircumcision."

He answers this question of "when" immediately by saying "Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision." This response denies that justification is concurrent or an incompleted progressive action that is concurrent from the point of faith to the point of death and therefore inclusive of both times of uncircumcision and circumcision aspects of his life.

In verse 12 he answers the question of "how" it was obtained in regard to circumcision or the administration of an external divine rite:

11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

Circumcision was received as a "sign" of circumcision as a "seal" of "the righteousness" he already "had" while still in uncircumcision. Indeed, there were many years that passed between his point of justification and his point of circumcision. Hence, circumcision did not even occur in the same proximity of time when he was justified by faith. Therefore the "sign" could only be symbolic as the literal justification had occurred years before in uncircumcision. Hence, the "seal" was merely an external seal that had no sacramental effect whatsoever as justification had already been communicated without it years before.

More significantly this distinction between literal and symbolical is not designed by Paul to be an isolated or abnormal occurrence but the example "FOR ALL THEM THAT BELIEVE." This emphatic statement which is immediately followed up with a double emphasis is utterly destructive to the sacramental doctrine..

Abraham serves as the model of justification by faith "in uncircumcision" or PRE-circumcision. To ignore this RESTRICTED time example and attempt to defend sacramentalism on a POST-circumcision basis is to simply ignore Paul's whole argument which which is designed to repudiate a post-circumcision example.

12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.

 

In Matthew chapter 11, the attention of most readers goes to the last several verses as these are famous passages of Scripture. But when reading this chapter of Scripture last night, verse 25 really stood out to me. I had never noticed it before:

25 At that time Jesus declared, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; 26 yes, Father, for such was your gracious will.[ ESV Bible.

Isn't that a curious statement from Christ? What does it mean?

It seems to me that what Christ is saying is that the truths of the Gospel are not received by adult intelligence and maturity. God reveals the Gospel to little children. He doesn't say that he reveals the truth to adults who have faith LIKE little children, but "to" little children.

Notice that Christ uses the phrase "little children" not just children. The Greek word used here is "nepiois". I will have to look up the definition of that word in a Greek dictionary, but I think most people would understand the term "little children" as toddlers and babies.

Isn't it interesting that God says that He reveals the truths of the Gospel to babies and toddlers who have no capacity of understanding what sin is and lack the maturity and intelligence to make spiritual decisions!

Let's file this verse in the back of our minds while we continue reading the New Testament.

 

The plan of salvation has been the same ever since Adam's fall: faith in God and repentance. Nothing more, nothing less.

If you believe that you are saved just because you were baptized, YOU ARE NOT SAVED!

Salvation can only be obtained as a free gift, by the grace of God, received through faith, and accompanied by repentance.

 

This passage of Scripture points to the reason why "Biblicist" and I seem to be talking past each other. We have a fundamental difference in how we interpret Scripture.

Lutherans believe that Christians should believe what their Heavenly Father says in the Bible, regardless of whether it makes sense to us or not. We believe that we are to accept what God says with the faith of a little child.

If the father of a three year old tells his child that the sky is blue AND green, the child will believe him, even though the father's statement defies human logic and reason. Why does the 3 year old believe? He believes whatever his father says because he has total faith that his father is ALWAYS right!

An adult would respond to this comment by the father thus: "You are nuts!"

Lutherans believe that when two verses or two groups of verses are in "tension" (appear to be contradictory, but of course are not) we believe both, literally! We don't try to make one group of verses compatible with the other group by re-interpreting the literal meaning of one group. "My ways are not your ways, saith the Lord."

Therefore, if in one group of verses God says that we are saved by grace, through faith alone, accompanied by repentance AND in another group of verses God states that he forgives sins in baptism, we believe both groups of verses literally. We accept both with child-like faith. To others our belief system appears to be "nuts".

Calvinists do not interpret the Bible in this manner. Calvinists believe that everything in the Bible must make sense. "God is not the author of confusion" is often quoted by them. Therefore, they use the human rules of reason and logic to make the Bible consistent, all wrapped up in a neat package to easily understand.

But Matthew 11:25 demonstrates that God doesn't reveal his Gospel in that manner.

Believe God literally, unless he clearly indicates that he is not speaking literally! Don't try to fit God into a neat little box that helps you arrive at reasonable and logical conclusions about God's truths. He doesn't work that way. He has always enjoyed confounding the wise!

 

actually the debate is between false doctrinal views held by greek Greeks, and the correct doctrines from the Koine greek!

 

the way of salvation has ALWAYS been the Grace of the Cross that gets apllied to sinners ONLY by/in/thru faith placed upon jesus!

 

Apparently either you don't read to well or don't understand what you read or simply reject what you read.

I suggest you carefully read what I said and especially what Paul said again. He is denying that remission of sins occurs is in any way connected to any external divine rite and this is true in regard to all who are of faith. He is asserting that remission of sins is immediate with faith in the gospel (see Gal. 3:6-8).

 

First, you have to correctly interpret what you are reading and Lutherans do not do that in regard to this subject. They simply lack understanding of Biblical context and thus They distort, misrepresent and pervert the scriptures in order to make it fit their man made traditions that they read into the scriptures. I am not being harsh. I am simply telling the obvious truth.

Here is another text jerked and twisted out of its context and made to mean something it has nothing to do with. Do you think the Apostle John was addressing LITERAL infants when he addressed his READERS as "little children" in his epistles? You simply do are incapable of understanding metaphorical language. Jesus commonly addresses full grown men "as" little children and in the presence of literal little children applies them as a SIMILE to all his disciples.