The Heretics Message to the World:Be Baptized to
-
-
First Member
Contact:
PM
Member since 07/10/2003
Location: Germany
Part 2 The Heretics Message to the World:Be Baptized to be Saved!Mike and many other RCC think if you are not baptized in water you are not saved.Salvation can only come by water baptism think many religious people.Not only the RCC but the church of Jesus Christ and more... I may or may not believe coming forward is a necessary condition for salvation. But, if I clearly taught elsewhere that repentance/belief alone was sufficient no one would think coming forward is necessary for salvation,or water baptism is necessary for salvation.
Edited by evangelist on 07/19/2009 13:58:35
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 07/10/2003
Location: Germany
Jdubya
The thing I have an issue is your order of getting salvation, it is putting the cart before the horse, and that doesn't work by me and many others.
It is like saying a car requires a radio or tape player installed in the car to be a car.
It is true it is good to have music in your car but the car can still run and you can drive it without the extra wants
one love
I may or may not believe coming forward is a necessary condition for salvation. But, if I clearly taught elsewhere that repentance/belief alone was sufficient no one would think coming forward is necessary for salvation,or water baptism is necessary for salvation.
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 06/26/2002
well this is more like gas evan... and you cannot run a car on empty.
The truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it.
Flannery O'Connor
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 11/17/2007
Location: Canada
quote:
Originally posted by evangelist
quote:
Originally posted by Faith_at_Large
quote:
Originally posted by evangelist
quote:
Originally posted by Faith_at_Large
For a guy who wants me to go by the Bible alone, you sure like to twist things around. Why can you not accept Peter at his word. Acts 2:38 is straightforward, and yet to interpret it, you reversed the order in order to get what you wanted with no contextual consideration or any other Biblical support whatsoever.
I am the one asking you the question how you get your interpretation which is not there and is backwards bible interpretation and taken out of contexts and changed into a RC theology!
one love
You are the one who reversed the order of that passage.
It is very different from a Roman interpretation!
I didn't change the verse , I don't have a book of mormon or a JHW society new world bible or a koran!
one love
But you did. I did not use a pagan interpretation, and I was not using the Book of Mormon, or New World Translation or the Koran.
I used the King James Version. And I gave you two more examples of this in action from the King James Version of the Bible.
Do I need to quote it back to you in German - it is the same there too.
The problem you seem to have is that you are starting to disassociate our reception of the Holy Ghost with our salvation. Just as you previously separated our entrance into the New Covenant with salvation.
Do you honestly believe that you can be saved by saying a sinner's prayer (which is a work by the way) and rejecting Christ's covenant?
Do you seriously expect that we can be saved if we reject the Holy Ghost?
Pax et Bonum,
Faith_at_Large
Malachi 1:11 "For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name [shall be] great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense [shall be] offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name [shall be] great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts."
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 11/17/2007
Location: Canada
quote:
Notice what came first and what order the bible says it come!
hearing, believing using faith by accepting what they believe and then the roots from all this should be getting baptized , going to church prayer, read the bible and other religious stuff you want to do.
Only someone who believes and TRUSTS in Christ is going to bother with baptism, going to church and all that other "religious stuff".
Those who do not believe Christ's teachings will just call it "works" and tell people that these things are optional.
But the fact remains - those who do not abide in Christ, will NOT be saved. Jesus said it plainly. Those who keep His commandments shall be saved and baptism is one of the most important ones because it brings wannabee Christians into the New Covenant.
There is nothing in any of those passages or their surrounding chapters that even suggests that these things are optional.
If someone refuses to receive the Holy Ghost - can that person be saved?
Pax et Bonum,
Faith_at_Large
Malachi 1:11 "For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name [shall be] great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense [shall be] offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name [shall be] great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts."
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 07/10/2003
Location: Germany
quote:
Originally posted by mikejuli
well this is more like gas evan... and you cannot run a car on empty.
If I keep going down hill gas is not required!
one love mike
I may or may not believe coming forward is a necessary condition for salvation. But, if I clearly taught elsewhere that repentance/belief alone was sufficient no one would think coming forward is necessary for salvation,or water baptism is necessary for salvation.
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 07/10/2003
Location: Germany
quote:
Originally posted by Faith_at_Large
quote:
Originally posted by evangelist
quote:
Originally posted by Faith_at_Large
quote:
Originally posted by evangelist
quote:
Originally posted by Faith_at_Large
For a guy who wants me to go by the Bible alone, you sure like to twist things around. Why can you not accept Peter at his word. Acts 2:38 is straightforward, and yet to interpret it, you reversed the order in order to get what you wanted with no contextual consideration or any other Biblical support whatsoever.
I am the one asking you the question how you get your interpretation which is not there and is backwards bible interpretation and taken out of contexts and changed into a RC theology!
one love
You are the one who reversed the order of that passage.
It is very different from a Roman interpretation!
I didn't change the verse , I don't have a book of mormon or a JHW society new world bible or a koran!
one love
But you did. I did not use a pagan interpretation, and I was not using the Book of Mormon, or New World Translation or the Koran.
I used the King James Version. And I gave you two more examples of this in action from the King James Version of the Bible.
Do I need to quote it back to you in German - it is the same there too.
The problem you seem to have is that you are starting to disassociate our reception of the Holy Ghost with our salvation. Just as you previously separated our entrance into the New Covenant with salvation.
Do you honestly believe that you can be saved by saying a sinner's prayer (which is a work by the way) and rejecting Christ's covenant?
Do you seriously expect that we can be saved if we reject the Holy Ghost?
It is the Holy Ghost which open our heart when we hear the truth of the gospel to accept what we have salvation.
So why would they reject the Holy Ghost?
The born again spirit we get comes from above FAL did you know that all new !
It doesn't come by water , it is spiritual not water h2o!
one love
I may or may not believe coming forward is a necessary condition for salvation. But, if I clearly taught elsewhere that repentance/belief alone was sufficient no one would think coming forward is necessary for salvation,or water baptism is necessary for salvation.
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 07/10/2003
Location: Germany
If baptism is necessary to remit sin, then a person should not only be baptized, he should get into the baptismal
pool and refuse to ever get out, because he may commit sin after he is baptized, and could die before
he is baptized again. By trusting in Christ AND our baptism to save us, we are saying that Jesus Christ
ALONE is not enough.
Baptismal salvationists say that the reason many scriptures don't mention baptism is because a part is mentioned
for the whole, so the many verses that mention faith don't mention baptism. But none of the scriptures
in the section above: "WHAT SAVES A PERSON" tell us that a part is mentioned for the whole, so
baptismal salvationists are adding to the word of God, thereby twisting the scriptures to their own
destruction (2 Peter 3:16).
Jesus cried out on the cross: "it is finished" (translated from greek: teltelastai, which means "paid in full").
By saying That Jesus did 90% of the work of redemption, and we must do our 10% by getitng baptized,
we are saying that Christ's his death on the cross did not pay the sin debt in full, thereby calling Jesus
a liar. Also, Jesus said in Matthew 16:18 that the gates of hell would not prevail against the church.
But baptismal salvationists say true Christianity was lost after the apostles died. They believe that the
gates of hell did prevail against the church for 1800 years, until the founder of their church restored
the gospel (thereby calling Jesus a liar again). Why would you want to stay part of a church that calls Jesus a liar??
my source:
one love
I may or may not believe coming forward is a necessary condition for salvation. But, if I clearly taught elsewhere that repentance/belief alone was sufficient no one would think coming forward is necessary for salvation,or water baptism is necessary for salvation.
Edited by evangelist on 10/15/2009 17:10:32
-
-
Fifth Member
Contact:
PM
Member since 01/17/2007
Location: USA
quote:
Originally posted by evangelist
Jdubya
The thing I have an issue is your order of getting salvation, it is putting the cart before the horse, and that doesn't work by me and many others.
It is like saying a car requires a radio or tape player installed in the car to be a car.
It is true it is good to have music in your car but the car can still run and you can drive it without the extra wants
one love
I think Mike said it pretty well, but I'll take a shot at this analogy also.
Forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit are not accessories to salvation, they are the very gifts from God without which you can not be saved. Sanctifying grace is not an option. If you don't have it, you don't have the necessary equipment to function in heaven. Like Mike was pointing out, the car won't run without gasoline.
Now Acts 2:38 gives us the order to receive forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit. Repent and be baptized are both commanded to gain the result and thus occur prior to receiving the result.
Belief is a human act which cannot forgive sins and thus cannot save. It is the doorway to salvation, but insufficient. Yes, there are verses that say Believe in Jesus to be saved, but they aren't theologically complete statements.
Repentance is a human act which cannot forgive sins and thus cannot save. Those who do not believe will not be repenting of anything.
Baptism is God's action that one receives (Ezek. 36:25). Only a supernatural act of grace can remove sins and bring the Holy Spirit to reside in you. Unless you have the Holy Spirit and the supernatural gifts of faith, hope and charity put within you, you have not yet received sanctifying grace.... the very grace by which we are saved. This is received through baptism. This is God's objective sign so that we can leave the emotions and guessing aside. That is His mark on our souls, both a visible sign and an invisible reality.
To determine the normative order of "getting salvation" seems rather apparent in the Book of Acts and elsewhere, but let me ask you a few questions first?
1.) Is one saved or born again before repenting of sins?
2.) Is one saved or born again before being forgiven of sins?
3.) Is one saved or born again before receiving the Holy Spirit.
4.) Can one be saved without receiving the Holy Spirit?
5.) if you say no to all of the above, then Peter's order of salvation is belief, repentance, baptism, all of which precede (lead to) forgiveness of sins and receiving the Holy Spirit.
Thus, these are not accessories like a radio, but necessities like an engine, tires and petrol.
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 06/26/2002
quote:
If I keep going down hill gas is not required!
one love mike
true.... and the same goes for not keeping your lamp trimmed and burnin... no gas required.. as for me i'm not interested in going down...
The truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it.
Flannery O'Connor
-
-
Fifth Member
Contact:
PM
Member since 01/17/2007
Location: USA
Evan, you forgot the link, but please don't even bother. I doubt there are many who would even want to read another internet opinion piece.
The last paragraph sounds like the author is speaking about Mormons.
Really interesting. He is railing against baptismal salvationists and then defending the Catholic church, which for 2000 years never even questioned the necessity of baptism for salvation.
If your author is correct, then the Holy Spirit who inspired the bible and the many examples in the book of Acts in particular is a liar. He gave Peter a false Gospel.
Again, where does it ever say that baptism is a work of men? Ezekiel tells us it is a work of God as does Titus 3:5, etc. I guess if you tried to baptize yourself, it might be considered your own work, but where do you ever see that in the bible?
I think its time to start a thread on the true meaning of "it is finished", because John 19:30 seems to be a catch-all verse like Eph 2:8-9 for Protestants.
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 11/17/2007
Location: Canada
quote:
If baptism is necessary to remit sin, then a person should not only be baptized, he should get into the baptismal pool and refuse to ever get out, because he may commit sin after he is baptized, and could die before he is baptized again. By trusting in Christ AND our baptism to save us, we are saying that Jesus Christ
ALONE is not enough.
Around the fourth century, Christians were so afraid of sinning after baptism that many converts delayed baptism until it was almost too late. While they too has some misunderstanding (the individuals not the Church), they at least had some appreciation of what baptism did.
The Bible says repeatedly that baptism washes away our sins, so why do you think that it doesn't?
quote:
It is the Holy Ghost which open our heart when we hear the truth of the gospel to accept what we have salvation.
So why would they reject the Holy Ghost?
The born again spirit we get comes from above FAL did you know that all new !
It doesn't come by water , it is spiritual not water h2o!
Ah! See there you go again. We get the Holy Ghost from above, not our spirit. Our spirit, mind and body are renewed, not replaced.
And the Holy Spirit, which is NOT our born again spirit, comes from above, but Jesus set it up so that water is what brings it. The water is not what is special, but the sacrament is because Jesus instituted it.
Remember when there was a blind man and Jesus healed him by spitting on the ground, making clay of the spittle and dirt, and putting on the man's eyes and having him wash in the pool of Siloam. Did Jesus really need to do all of this? Was the mud magic? Was the pool at Siloam magic? No. How about His spit? Perhaps. Jesus did this miracle in this way to show that He could work with even the most common of materials to perform miracles.
And there is so much more that needs to be explained. Grace is what allows us to hear the Truth of the Gospel. We have this before we have belief. This is God's gift to everyone. Of course, not all listen. Many come to Faith by hearing the Gospel.
As for why anyone would reject the Holy Ghost? Many do. They let personal pride or desire get in their way. They want to do things their own way instead of God's way.
Pax et Bonum,
Faith_at_Large
Malachi 1:11 "For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name [shall be] great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense [shall be] offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name [shall be] great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts."
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 07/10/2003
Location: Germany
quote:
Originally posted by jdubya
quote:
Originally posted by evangelist
Jdubya
The thing I have an issue is your order of getting salvation, it is putting the cart before the horse, and that doesn't work by me and many others.
It is like saying a car requires a radio or tape player installed in the car to be a car.
It is true it is good to have music in your car but the car can still run and you can drive it without the extra wants
one love
I think Mike said it pretty well, but I'll take a shot at this analogy also.
Forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit are not accessories to salvation, they are the very gifts from God without which you can not be saved. Sanctifying grace is not an option. If you don't have it, you don't have the necessary equipment to function in heaven. Like Mike was pointing out, the car won't run without gasoline.
Now Acts 2:38 gives us the order to receive forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit. Repent and be baptized are both commanded to gain the result and thus occur prior to receiving the result.
Belief is a human act which cannot forgive sins and thus cannot save. It is the doorway to salvation, but insufficient. Yes, there are verses that say Believe in Jesus to be saved, but they aren't theologically complete statements.
Repentance is a human act which cannot forgive sins and thus cannot save. Those who do not believe will not be repenting of anything.
Baptism is God's action that one receives (Ezek. 36:25). Only a supernatural act of grace can remove sins and bring the Holy Spirit to reside in you. Unless you have the Holy Spirit and the supernatural gifts of faith, hope and charity put within you, you have not yet received sanctifying grace.... the very grace by which we are saved. This is received through baptism. This is God's objective sign so that we can leave the emotions and guessing aside. That is His mark on our souls, both a visible sign and an invisible reality.
To determine the normative order of "getting salvation" seems rather apparent in the Book of Acts and elsewhere, but let me ask you a few questions first?
1.) Is one saved or born again before repenting of sins?
2.) Is one saved or born again before being forgiven of sins?
3.) Is one saved or born again before receiving the Holy Spirit.
4.) Can one be saved without receiving the Holy Spirit?
5.) if you say no to all of the above, then Peter's order of salvation is belief, repentance, baptism, all of which precede (lead to) forgiveness of sins and receiving the Holy Spirit.
Thus, these are not accessories like a radio, but necessities like an engine, tires and petrol.
An answer to your acts 2 and water baptism a requirement and need for repentance and forgiveness of sins.
ACTS 2:38
"change your hearts and lives and be baptized, each one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ
for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."
ANSWER
Baptismal Salvationists argue that the word "for" means: IN ORDER TO OBTAIN, and then conclude that
one must be baptized in order to obtain the forgiveness of sins. But students of the greek language know
that "for" (translated from Greek: "eis") is a preposition of reference used to signify a relationship
between two things, and that it can have several meanings. It could be understood for example as
CAUSATIVE: "in order to obtain", or as RESULTANT: "because of having obtained". Since prepositions in
the english language can also have several meanings, it may be easier to look at 2 illustrations in english,
and then apply what we learn to our text.
If one says: "I am going to the office for my paycheck", the
meaning is clearly causative (to get my paycheck). Applying this to ACTS 2:38, one should be baptized to
get the forgiveness of sins. On the other hand, if one says: "I enlisted for love of my country", the
meaning is clearly resultant (because I love my country). Applying this to ACTS 2:38, one should be
baptized because one already has the forgiveness of sins. This interpretation contradicts the teaching of
baptismal salvationists. The immediate context does not help us in the case of ACTS 2:38 to determine
which meaning is correct. But other passages in ACTS relate forgiveness of sins to repentance (ACTS 3:9),
and to believing prior to baptism (ACTS 10:43-48). These and other passages in the new testament support
the view that "for" in ACTS 2:38 has a resultant sense that one should be baptized because one
ALREADY HAS the forgiveness of sins.
Since the relationship between baptism and forgiveness cannot be
determined from the preposition and the immediate context of ACTS 2:38, this text cannot be used as a
prooftext by baptismal salvationists to substantiate their teaching. ACTS 2:38 states that the gift of the
holy spirit follows the remission of sins. It should be noted that in ACTS 10:45 Cornelius received the gift
of the holy spirit before he was water baptized. Yet according to ACTS 2:38, one cannot receive the gift
of the holy spirit unless his sins are forgiven. This shows that ACTS 10:45 exemplifies that the remission
of sins in ACTS 2:38 is referring to repentance, not water baptism.
For example, LUKE 5;13-14 says:
"Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. I will. Be healed! Immediately the disease disappeared.
Then Jesus said: Don't tell anyone about this, but go and show yourself to the priest and offer a gift for
your healing, as Moses commanded. This will show the people what I have done". The Leper already had his
cleansing. Replacing FOR YOUR CLEANSING with IN ORDER TO OBTAIN YOUR CLEANSING would not
fit. A modern example of this is the commonly used phrase: "take 2 aspirins FOR a headache. No one
would take 2 aspirins in order to obtain a headache. You take 2 aspirins because you ALREADY HAVE a
headache. Therefore, Christians aren't baptized to be saved, but baptized because they already are saved.
one love
I may or may not believe coming forward is a necessary condition for salvation. But, if I clearly taught elsewhere that repentance/belief alone was sufficient no one would think coming forward is necessary for salvation,or water baptism is necessary for salvation.
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 07/10/2003
Location: Germany
quote:
Originally posted by jdubya
Evan, you forgot the link, but please don't even bother. I doubt there are many who would even want to read another internet opinion piece.
The last paragraph sounds like the author is speaking about Mormons.
Really interesting. He is railing against baptismal salvationists and then defending the Catholic church, which for 2000 years never even questioned the necessity of baptism for salvation.
If your author is correct, then the Holy Spirit who inspired the bible and the many examples in the book of Acts in particular is a liar. He gave Peter a false Gospel.
Again, where does it ever say that baptism is a work of men? Ezekiel tells us it is a work of God as does Titus 3:5, etc. I guess if you tried to baptize yourself, it might be considered your own work, but where do you ever see that in the bible?
I think its time to start a thread on the true meaning of "it is finished", because John 19:30 seems to be a catch-all verse like Eph 2:8-9 for Protestants.
If you go to the eternal redemption thread you might don't have to start a (It is Finished thread)
one love
I may or may not believe coming forward is a necessary condition for salvation. But, if I clearly taught elsewhere that repentance/belief alone was sufficient no one would think coming forward is necessary for salvation,or water baptism is necessary for salvation.
-
-
Fifth Member
Contact:
PM
Member since 01/17/2007
Location: USA
quote:
Originally posted by evangelist
An answer to your acts 2 and water baptism a requirement and need for repentance and forgiveness of sins.
Acts 2 is only one of dozens of verses, but it shows the order of regeneration. After months you finally found a website that agrees with you. As usual, this is completely unscholarly and relegates baptism to a dead work. Such a prominent teaching in the NT and it really means nothing at all.
There is zero precedence for this opinion below. It is a way to salvage a 19th century religious tradition that can't stand up to scripture or Greek.
quote:
ACTS 2:38
"change your hearts and lives and be baptized, each one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ
for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."
ANSWER
Baptismal Salvationists argue that the word "for" means: IN ORDER TO OBTAIN, and then conclude that
one must be baptized in order to obtain the forgiveness of sins. But students of the greek language know
that "for" (translated from Greek: "eis") is a preposition of reference used to signify a relationship
between two things, and that it can have several meanings. It could be understood for example as
CAUSATIVE: "in order to obtain", or as RESULTANT: "because of having obtained". Since prepositions in
the english language can also have several meanings, it may be easier to look at 2 illustrations in english,
and then apply what we learn to our text.
If one says: "I am going to the office for my paycheck", the
meaning is clearly causative (to get my paycheck). Applying this to ACTS 2:38, one should be baptized to
get the forgiveness of sins. On the other hand, if one says: "I enlisted for love of my country", the
meaning is clearly resultant (because I love my country). Applying this to ACTS 2:38, one should be
baptized because one already has the forgiveness of sins. This interpretation contradicts the teaching of
baptismal salvationists. The immediate context does not help us in the case of ACTS 2:38 to determine
which meaning is correct. But other passages in ACTS relate forgiveness of sins to repentance (ACTS 3:9),
and to believing prior to baptism (ACTS 10:43-48). These and other passages in the new testament support
the view that "for" in ACTS 2:38 has a resultant sense that one should be baptized because one
ALREADY HAS the forgiveness of sins.
Since the relationship between baptism and forgiveness cannot be
determined from the preposition and the immediate context of ACTS 2:38, this text cannot be used as a
prooftext by baptismal salvationists to substantiate their teaching. ACTS 2:38 states that the gift of the
holy spirit follows the remission of sins. It should be noted that in ACTS 10:45 Cornelius received the gift
of the holy spirit before he was water baptized. Yet according to ACTS 2:38, one cannot receive the gift
of the holy spirit unless his sins are forgiven. This shows that ACTS 10:45 exemplifies that the remission
of sins in ACTS 2:38 is referring to repentance, not water baptism.
For example, LUKE 5;13-14 says:
"Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. I will. Be healed! Immediately the disease disappeared.
Then Jesus said: Don't tell anyone about this, but go and show yourself to the priest and offer a gift for
your healing, as Moses commanded. This will show the people what I have done". The Leper already had his
cleansing. Replacing FOR YOUR CLEANSING with IN ORDER TO OBTAIN YOUR CLEANSING would not
fit. A modern example of this is the commonly used phrase: "take 2 aspirins FOR a headache. No one
would take 2 aspirins in order to obtain a headache. You take 2 aspirins because you ALREADY HAVE a
headache. Therefore, Christians aren't baptized to be saved, but baptized because they already are saved.
one love
This is almost entirely a straw-man argument. The Greek word eis does not mean 'for'. That is an English translation, and thus the English examples that are used are meaningless. We can toss those all out immediately. We are addressing the Greek word 'eis', not the English word 'for'.
What 'eis' more precisely means is unto or into. When it is used with an action verb it always represents forward progress without exception. Never in the KJV is 'eis' ever translated as 'because of'. The score is 1773 to 0. Your author is trying to embark on an impossible task with zero support in scripture or usage in the Greek language. Why would he even attempt such a thing? It can only appear as a desparate attempt to salvage this theology.
The one scriptural example he gives is in Luke 5:13-14 and there is a huge problem. Again, he is using the English translation 'for'. The Greek work used here is 'peri', not 'eis'. The word 'peri' is sometimes translated as 'for', but most often means concerning, regarding, in reference to, etc., so again this is a meaningless example, which does absolutely nothing for his case. This really seems like trickery of the worst sort. He might be able to pull a fast one on his adoring audience to tickle their ears, but anyone with an interlinear can spot the deception. The irony is that 'eis' is used in this verse and it is exactly how we expect:
Lk 5:14 And he charged him to tell no man: but go, and shew thyself to the priest, and offer for (peri - concerning) thy cleansing, according as Moses commanded, for (eis) a testimony unto them.
The offering (completion of the cleansing ritual ) became the proof or testimony of his cleansing. The offering wasn't 'because of' the proof or testimony.
See Lev. 13:49 - 14:32 to see the rituals involved. He wasn't officially cleansed until all of the prescribed courses according to the law were completed.
So even in the one example from scripture, your author doesn't even refer to the word 'eis' and yet in the same verse is proof of the exact opposite of what he wants to prove.
Wouldn't you think with 1773 occurrences of 'eis' in the NT, your author could find one example to back his claim? This guy wants to win the lottery, but didn't even buy a ticket.
In looking at Acts 2:37,38 the Jews were asking Peter what they could do to be relieved or forgiven of the guilt of murdering Jesus. Obviously they believed Peter's Gospel message. Peter did not say they were already forgiven. He told them two things that they must do to receive forgiveness and the Holy Sprit. The word kai joins repentance and baptism. They can't be broken up to make repentance a condition and baptism a result. They are both conditions. Even if your author had a case at all, he would have to say that repentance and baptism are both either results or both conditions. If repentance is a condition, then baptism is also. If repentance is a result (which is ridiculous) then baptism would also be a result. He even breaks these rules, saying that repentance is a condition and baptism is a result. This just adds more layers to his errors.
The same goes for forgiveness of sins and the Gift of the Holy Spirit. They are joined by the word and ('kai') meaning they are either both results or both conditions.
Do we repent because of the forgiveness of sins?
Do we repent because of the gift of the Holy Spirit?
Last but not least, I am not surprised at the reference to Cornelius which is the only example in all of scripture of someone receiving the Holy Spirit before baptism. We have already discussed this a dozen times with you. This was a sign from God that Gentiles were welcome into the Church. Cornelius was the first Gentile convert and was immediately baptized thereafter.
Your author says these and other passages...... This is a flat out false statement. There are no other passages similar to the story of Cornelius. In fact, all of the other passages in Acts show Baptism and laying on of hands precedes the Holy spirit. St. Pauls Baptism is to wash away his sins. The fact that you author leaves out all of the examples that are clearly in opposition to his theses shows that he has no intention of presenting a balanced argument.
I don't think there is much reason to go further, because your author is back to square 0.
All that is left of His article is an appeal to Cornelius.
I really wish that I could read just one article that you cut and paste and say "AMEN", but the quality of scholarship is so poor and the intentions are so obvious. This will always be the case as long as your exegesis of scripture consists of random internet articles that "sound good".
Just to summarize:
'because of' or 'as a result of' = 0 for 1773 instances of 'eis' in scrpture.
Acts 2:38 remains a solid proof text for baptismal regeneration.
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 07/10/2003
Location: Germany
Hello Jdubya
Sorry I am not a greek and Hebrew scholar and teacher like you are, and many other people who don't know greek and Hebrew might have simular problems with the bible.
I do in many texts of the bible know from the beginning or from square 1 as you say that the physical and the outside realm of the spiritual world is not the real world that is none sense to the Kingdom of God and to God who is spirit.
On this Key revelation of the bible and spiritual things which involves beliefs, faith, forgiveness ,andprayer,is what is very important to my belief and relationship which is invisible, not seen and mostly misunderstood by man and religious leaders as so called.
I used this author because he printed in a man way of logical thinking and understanding of why a water baptismal is not required, but should be done sooner or latter but never a must to be saved, or forgiven of sins.
It is very important for me to know this truth as a tv and radio Evangelist, and when I witness on the street and go witnessing door to door to tell people about the too good gospel of Christ unconditional, and without legalisms.
The author use proper english better than mine, so I thought it would be good to use to show you and those who focus water baptism as a need to repentance and those who focus on the outward , more than the inward part of mans heart and what should be spiritual so the relationmship with them and God could be as one because God is Spirit, not carnal or flesh Himself.
As far as you have read in the english I think you can see the position of what the english bible is showing that water baptism is not required is this true??
I have not study what (eis) means or the real translation of it, but I know there are other scholars and teacher who can biblically deal with your interpretation better than me on this, but I would have to go to another author and link concerning this.
When ever a religion can't deal with the bible text at large they end up going to the greek or Hebrew translations, and JHW are expert at this even though they are not greek and Hebrew scholars at all, they are hear it claim it society.
Just one question are you saying the proof that water baptismal is required is just because of this one word misused as such (for)???
Like the JHW use (a ) instead of (was) in John 1:1 which make Jesus not God and takes that whole texts out of contexts??
one love Jdubya
I may or may not believe coming forward is a necessary condition for salvation. But, if I clearly taught elsewhere that repentance/belief alone was sufficient no one would think coming forward is necessary for salvation,or water baptism is necessary for salvation.
Edited by evangelist on 10/17/2009 03:56:22
|
|
Subscribe by Email
RSS