Since Acts 2:38 teaches that the baptism commanded is "for the remission of sins,"

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Mar 12, 2014
6,433
29
0
Re: Since Acts 2:38 teaches that the baptism commanded is "for the remission of sins,



The argument made by my Robertson was that because “be baptized” is third person singular and “repent” is second person plural means Peter had to have given separate instructions to two different groups of people with differing results.
1 Cor 16:2 is another example where the same people are addressed in both 3rd person singular (him) and 2nd person plural (you):

Link:
1 Corinthians 16:2 Interlinear: on every first day of the week, let each one of you lay by him, treasuring up whatever he may have prospered, that when I may come then collections may not be made;
 

MarcR

Senior Member
Feb 12, 2015
5,486
183
63
Re: Since Acts 2:38 teaches that the baptism commanded is "for the remission of sins,

I wonder then if you would explain to me why the Jewish translators of this verse render it this way in the Peshitta"Said to them Simon You repent and dip (plunge, bathe, wash) each one of you in name of the Lord Yeshua (Jesus) for the forgiveness of the sin in order that you might receive the gift of the Spirit the Holy"



[TABLE="width: 670"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 666"][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

The Peshito Is a Syrian Aramaic translation of the Septuigent and parts of the NT used by the Syriac Christians in and around Antioch. These Syriac Christians were NOT Jewish ; and were either unaware o,f or ignored rabbinic teaching.

The fact that the Greek can be understood differently by different people is the reason for this thread.
 

mailmandan

Senior Member
Apr 7, 2014
25,423
13,360
113
58
Re: Since Acts 2:38 teaches that the baptism commanded is "for the remission of sins,

Well, let us see how this argument stands the test of the grammar. Most of this work is mine but I have placed an astric by those comments I have borrowed from other sources over the years.

The simple fact of the matter is that “repent and be baptize each one of you” DO agree in both person and in number. From the Byzantine text: Πέτρος δὲ ἔφη πρὸς αὐτούς, Μετανοήσατε, καὶ βαπτισθήτω ἕκαστος ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν, καὶ λήψεσθε τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος.
“Peter also said to them (third person plural), repent (second person plural) and be baptized (third person singular) each one of you (second person plural) in the name of Jesus Christ into forgiveness of sins, and you will receive (second person plural) the gift of the Holy Spirit.” ὑμῶν – “each one of you” is second person plural and modifies βαπτισθήτω which is third person plural. ὑμῶν agrees in person and in number with μετανοήσατε – repent. He said the same thing to every one of those present laying down the same command to each one. To whom was he speaking? All of them, third person plural. Who did he command to repent? All of them, second person plural. Who did he command to be baptized? Every one of them second person plural; And these two imperatives are joined together by the conjunction καὶ thus are not grammatically separated. Although the word βαπτισθήτω is third person singular spelling, it is modified by ὑμῶν – “each one of you” which is second person plural. In fact ὑμῶν stands as a modifier for both μετανοήσατε, and βαπτισθήτω.Who would receive the remission of sins? Everyone who obeyed the linked imperatives to repent and be baptized, second person plural. Who would receive the Holy Spirit as a gift? Everyone of them who obeyed the linked imperatives to repent and be baptized, second person plural. The reference point for the two imperatives and the future indicative – “will receive,” produces exactly the same results at the same time for the same responders – “the gift of the Holy Spirit.” *Grammatically, verse 38 shows a narrowing of focus from a general admonition for all to “repent” to a more specific focus on each individual who make up the αὐτούς of the first cluse to the action that is designated to follow. The imperative “be baptized” is reflexive and is modified by “each of you” and directs both imperatives to the entire assembly.
So who should I believe? You or E Calvin Beisner? He said vs. you said. Again, he said - In Greek, every one of you is comprised of the adjective for each (e”kastoV, hekastos), which is used as a noun here, and the partitive genitive pronoun for you (uJmwÇn, humōn). (That is, every one is part [hence partitive] of you [plural].) You identifies the class of which every one is a part. The command [let him] be baptized, moreover, is third-person singular, and its subject is not you but every one. For you to have been the subject of the command to be baptized, it would have to have been in the nominative, or subject, case (uJmeiæV, humeis), not in the genitive, or possessive, case (uJmwÇn, humōn), and the command be baptized would have to have been in the second-person plural (baptivsesqe, baptisesthe), not in the third-person singular (baptisqhvtw, baptistheitō).

In short, the most precise English translation of the relevant clauses, arranging them to reflect the switches in person and number of the verbs, would be, “You (plural) repent for the forgiveness of your (plural) sins, and let each one (singular) of you be baptized (singular)….” Or, to adopt our Southern dialect again, “Y’all repent for the forgiveness of y’all’s sins, and let each one of you be baptized….”

When I showed this translation to the late Julius Mantey, one of the foremost Greek grammarians of the twentieth century and co-author of A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (originally published in 1927), he approved and even signed his name next to it in the margin of my Greek New Testament.

These arguments, lexical and grammatical, stand independently. Even if one rejects both lexical meanings of for, he still must face the grammatical argument, and even if he rejects the grammatical conclusion, he still must face the lexical argument.
Does Acts 2:38 prove baptismal remission? No, it doesn’t even support it as part of a cumulative case. — E. Calvin Beisner

AT Robertson - Change of number from plural to singular and of person from second to third. This change marks a break in the thought here that the English translation does not preserve. The first thing to do is make a radical and complete change of heart and life. Then let each one be baptized after this change has taken place, and the act of baptism be performed “in the name of Jesus Christ” (εν τωι ονοματι Ιησου Χριστου — en tōi onomati Iēsou Christou). So I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received.”

I listened to a debate on this between a Baptist preacher and a church of Christ preacher. The Baptist preacher states:

The Greek rule regarding agreement between verbs and pronouns requires that the remission of sins be connected with repentance, not with baptism.

The fundamental question is this - to which verb, the verb "repent," or the verb "be baptized," does the prepositional phrase "for the remission of your sins" refer to or connect? That is the $64, 000 question.

First, lets talk about the ANTECEDENT OF humon or the pronoun "your" in English. What is the antecedent of this pronoun? In order to answer this, we must first note that there are two main clauses preceding the prepositional phrase.

Though both leading clauses are imperatives, they are not identical, for the first clause, "repent ye" (including both verb and pronoun), is second person plural, while the second clause, "each one of you be baptized" (including both verb and pronoun), is third person singular. Thus, there is a change of both person and number between the verbs and pronouns in these two clauses.

In the prepositional phrase, "for the remission or YOUR sins," the pronoun “your” is second person plural. The effect of this change from second person plural to third person singular, and then back again to second person plural, shows that the phrase connects directly with the command to “repent.”

Essentially what you have is - “You (plural) repent for the forgiveness of your (plural) sins, and let each one (singular) of you be baptized (singular).” Or, “You all repent for the forgiveness of all of your sins, and let each one of you be baptized.”

Acts 2:38 has two occurrences of the pronoun "your" or "humon"; both are second person plural in the genitive case. The first occurs in the phrase "each of you," in which humon functions as a partitive genitive, indicating the group from which each person derives. The second occurrence is in the phrase "for the remission of your sins," in which humon is a subjective genitive indicating whose sins are involved in the remission.

The basic rule of concord, in Greek, stipulates that a personal pronoun (in this case humon) agrees with its antecedent in gender and number.

The concord between verb and pronoun requires that the remission of sins be connected with repentance, not with baptism.

If one associates forgiveness with baptism, the verse translated into English, with due accord to person and number, would read like this, "let him [third singular] be baptized for the remission of your [second plural] sins." But, such an interpretation or translation would be supporting an absurdity. It would be affirming that an individual's baptism remitted the sin of others, in this case, that of the Pentecostal penitents, or of the crowd, as a group.

The structure of Acts 2:38 illustrates that the command to be baptized is parenthetical and is not syntactically connected to remission of sins. When Peter commanded the people to repent, he was speaking to the crowd. Then the command to be baptized was directed to each individual. In the "remission of your sins" phrase, Peter again directed his words to the crowd collectively. So who should I believe? *Who's interpretation is in harmony with Acts 3;19; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31? What they said or what you said? Are you satisfied with contradictions in the Bible? I'm certainly not. Look again at Matthew 3:11 - "I baptize you with water for (eis) "in order to obtain" repentance or for (eis) "in regards to/on the basis of" repentance? The answer is obvious and it fits perfectly. Look at Luke 24:47 - .."repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name.." Look at Acts 3:19 - "Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out.." *Hermeneutics.

It has also been argued that according to the rule of Greek grammar that verbs within the same clause must agree both in person and number but the fact is that this is not the case. For example, *in 1Cor 1:12 we find the following construction; Λέγω δὲ τοῦτο, ὅτι ἕκαστος ὑμῶν λέγει, Ἐγὼ μέν εἰμι Παύλου, Ἐγὼ δὲ Ἀπολλώ, Ἐγὼ δὲ Κηφᾶ, Ἐγὼ δὲ Χριστοῦ. Here is a perfect example where the subject the same persons is referred to in all three persons. This really does not matter because as I have shown, “repent and be baptize each one of you” DO agree in person and in number and these do not form two separate clauses,
Says you. Again, it's you said vs. they said. Who do think that I am going to believe?

The argument made by my Robertson was that because “be baptized” is third person singular and “repent” is second person plural means Peter had to have given separate instructions to two different groups of people with differing results. Beyond the obvious absurdity of this argument is the simple fact that ἕκαστος ὑμῶν – “each one of you” renders the argument invalid. Robertson and many like him argue that because “be baptized” is third person singular it cannot be linked to the second person plural command to “repent.” What this argument refuses to acknowledge is that “be baptized” is accompanied by a second person plural modifier – ἕκαστος ὑμῶν – “each one of you.” So “be baptized” can only be understood in connection with its second person plural modifier. It is actually just as simple as this, grammatically βαπτισθήτω cannot be separated as a third person singular verb from its modifiers ἕκαστος ὑμῶν which is second person plural. *Therefore, both verbs under discussion are treated as second person imperatives both resulting in the same outcome – forgiveness of sin. There is no disagreement with subject and verb in this verse. "βαπτισθήτω" is 3rd person singular which corrosponds to the nominative singular adjective ἕκαστος", which here acts here as a substantive ("each"). βαπτισθήτω has a different subject than μετανοήσατε ("you" plural expressed in the form of the verb), even though both μετανοήσατε and βαπτισθήτω refer to the same group.
What is absurd is interpreting a verse in the Bible in such a way that it contradicts multiple passages of Scripture (Acts 3:19; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31). That is the bottom line for me. Robertson is not the only Greek scholar who disagrees with you.

I do not know how much more plainly this could have possibly be written in the Greek.
Says you and people who attend various churches that teach salvation by works, namely, the church of Christ, the Roman Catholic church, the Mormon church, the Oneness Pentecostal church etc.. All of these churches (which have perverted the gospel) place a heavy emphasis on water baptism being absolutely necessary for salvation and use Acts 2:38 to support their argument, which is a red flag for me. The Roman Catholic church has gone off the deep end with baptismal regeneration and even baptize infants. The Mormon church has practiced baptism for the dead. I was once approached by a Oneness Pentecostal while delivering mail and she asked me if I had been baptized in "Jesus name only" and specified that if I was baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit that I will not be saved. She even told me to go home that night and read "Acts 2:38" and if necessary, baptize myself in the bath tub in "Jesus name only." It amazes me to see how so many people have gone off the deep end with water baptism.

I don't care how many people sign off on it Robertson's treatment of this verse is an embarrasment to his skills as a translater.
You are entitled to your opinion. I don't care how many people sign off on salvation by water baptism, which is in contradiction to salvation by grace through faith, not works. Scripture MUST harmonize with other Scripture. Faith in Jesus Christ "implied in genuine repentance" (rather than water baptism) brings the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38; 3:19; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31). *Perfect Harmony. You seem more concerned with forcing Acts 2:38 to "conform" to your theology rather than harmonizing Scripture with Scripture.

Wallace certainly did not agree with this grammatical travisty of Robertson's. In fact, he was very much apposed to it. If you like I can post Wallace's critique of this verse and you can compare the opposing fiews of these tow great scholars. The difference between this on their approach to this text is that Robertson's treatment of this verse is by his own admition driven by his soteriological position rather than the force of the grammar of this text. Wallace, on the other hand, who like Robertson also did not believe that baptism was for the rission of sin but he dealt with the text as a grammarian and not as a soteriologist. This is how this is supposed to be done.
Regardless of what you say about Robertson (you can pit Robertson and Wallace against each other all you want), but in the end, neither Robertson or Wallace interpreted Acts 2:38 to mean that baptism is in order to obtain the remission of sins. Apparently then, your forced grammar argument doesn't measure up and certainly doesn't harmonize with Acts 3:19; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31.
 

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,144
614
113
70
Alabama
Re: Since Acts 2:38 teaches that the baptism commanded is "for the remission of sins,

So who should I believe? You or E Calvin Beisner? He said vs. you said. Again, he said - In Greek, every one of you is comprised of the adjective for each (e”kastoV, hekastos), which is used as a noun here, and the partitive genitive pronoun for you (uJmwÇn, humōn). (That is, every one is part [hence partitive] of you [plural].) You identifies the class of which every one is a part. The command [let him] be baptized, moreover, is third-person singular, and its subject is not you but every one. For you to have been the subject of the command to be baptized, it would have to have been in the nominative, or subject, case (uJmeiæV, humeis), not in the genitive, or possessive, case (uJmwÇn, humōn), and the command be baptized would have to have been in the second-person plural (baptivsesqe, baptisesthe), not in the third-person singular (baptisqhvtw, baptistheitō).

In short, the most precise English translation of the relevant clauses, arranging them to reflect the switches in person and number of the verbs, would be, “You (plural) repent for the forgiveness of your (plural) sins, and let each one (singular) of you be baptized (singular)….” Or, to adopt our Southern dialect again, “Y’all repent for the forgiveness of y’all’s sins, and let each one of you be baptized….”

When I showed this translation to the late Julius Mantey, one of the foremost Greek grammarians of the twentieth century and co-author of A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (originally published in 1927), he approved and even signed his name next to it in the margin of my Greek New Testament.

These arguments, lexical and grammatical, stand independently. Even if one rejects both lexical meanings of for, he still must face the grammatical argument, and even if he rejects the grammatical conclusion, he still must face the lexical argument.
Does Acts 2:38 prove baptismal remission? No, it doesn’t even support it as part of a cumulative case. — E. Calvin Beisner

AT Robertson - Change of number from plural to singular and of person from second to third. This change marks a break in the thought here that the English translation does not preserve. The first thing to do is make a radical and complete change of heart and life. Then let each one be baptized after this change has taken place, and the act of baptism be performed “in the name of Jesus Christ” (εν τωι ονοματι Ιησου Χριστου — en tōi onomati Iēsou Christou). So I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received.”

I listened to a debate on this between a Baptist preacher and a church of Christ preacher. The Baptist preacher states:

The Greek rule regarding agreement between verbs and pronouns requires that the remission of sins be connected with repentance, not with baptism.

The fundamental question is this - to which verb, the verb "repent," or the verb "be baptized," does the prepositional phrase "for the remission of your sins" refer to or connect? That is the $64, 000 question.

First, lets talk about the ANTECEDENT OF humon or the pronoun "your" in English. What is the antecedent of this pronoun? In order to answer this, we must first note that there are two main clauses preceding the prepositional phrase.

Though both leading clauses are imperatives, they are not identical, for the first clause, "repent ye" (including both verb and pronoun), is second person plural, while the second clause, "each one of you be baptized" (including both verb and pronoun), is third person singular. Thus, there is a change of both person and number between the verbs and pronouns in these two clauses.

In the prepositional phrase, "for the remission or YOUR sins," the pronoun “your” is second person plural. The effect of this change from second person plural to third person singular, and then back again to second person plural, shows that the phrase connects directly with the command to “repent.”

Essentially what you have is - “You (plural) repent for the forgiveness of your (plural) sins, and let each one (singular) of you be baptized (singular).” Or, “You all repent for the forgiveness of all of your sins, and let each one of you be baptized.”

Acts 2:38 has two occurrences of the pronoun "your" or "humon"; both are second person plural in the genitive case. The first occurs in the phrase "each of you," in which humon functions as a partitive genitive, indicating the group from which each person derives. The second occurrence is in the phrase "for the remission of your sins," in which humon is a subjective genitive indicating whose sins are involved in the remission.

The basic rule of concord, in Greek, stipulates that a personal pronoun (in this case humon) agrees with its antecedent in gender and number.

The concord between verb and pronoun requires that the remission of sins be connected with repentance, not with baptism.

If one associates forgiveness with baptism, the verse translated into English, with due accord to person and number, would read like this, "let him [third singular] be baptized for the remission of your [second plural] sins." But, such an interpretation or translation would be supporting an absurdity. It would be affirming that an individual's baptism remitted the sin of others, in this case, that of the Pentecostal penitents, or of the crowd, as a group.

The structure of Acts 2:38 illustrates that the command to be baptized is parenthetical and is not syntactically connected to remission of sins. When Peter commanded the people to repent, he was speaking to the crowd. Then the command to be baptized was directed to each individual. In the "remission of your sins" phrase, Peter again directed his words to the crowd collectively. So who should I believe? *Who's interpretation is in harmony with Acts 3;19; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31? What they said or what you said? Are you satisfied with contradictions in the Bible? I'm certainly not. Look again at Matthew 3:11 - "I baptize you with water for (eis) "in order to obtain" repentance or for (eis) "in regards to/on the basis of" repentance? The answer is obvious and it fits perfectly. Look at Luke 24:47 - .."repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name.." Look at Acts 3:19 - "Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out.." *Hermeneutics.

Says you. Again, it's you said vs. they said. Who do think that I am going to believe?

What is absurd is interpreting a verse in the Bible in such a way that it contradicts multiple passages of Scripture (Acts 3:19; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31). That is the bottom line for me. Robertson is not the only Greek scholar who disagrees with you.

Says you and people who attend various churches that teach salvation by works, namely, the church of Christ, the Roman Catholic church, the Mormon church, the Oneness Pentecostal church etc.. All of these churches (which have perverted the gospel) place a heavy emphasis on water baptism being absolutely necessary for salvation and use Acts 2:38 to support their argument, which is a red flag for me. The Roman Catholic church has gone off the deep end with baptismal regeneration and even baptize infants. The Mormon church has practiced baptism for the dead. I was once approached by a Oneness Pentecostal while delivering mail and she asked me if I had been baptized in "Jesus name only" and specified that if I was baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit that I will not be saved. She even told me to go home that night and read "Acts 2:38" and if necessary, baptize myself in the bath tub in "Jesus name only." It amazes me to see how so many people have gone off the deep end with water baptism.

You are entitled to your opinion. I don't care how many people sign off on salvation by water baptism, which is in contradiction to salvation by grace through faith, not works. Scripture MUST harmonize with other Scripture. Faith in Jesus Christ "implied in genuine repentance" (rather than water baptism) brings the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38; 3:19; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31). *Perfect Harmony. You seem more concerned with forcing Acts 2:38 to "conform" to your theology rather than harmonizing Scripture with Scripture.

Regardless of what you say about Robertson (you can pit Robertson and Wallace against each other all you want), but in the end, neither Robertson or Wallace interpreted Acts 2:38 to mean that baptism is in order to obtain the remission of sins. Apparently then, your forced grammar argument doesn't measure up and certainly doesn't harmonize with Acts 3:19; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31.
Well Dan, I think it is clear that you and I are not going to agree on this subject. I simply wish you could recognize Robertson's reinvention of this verse for what it is - an embarrassment to his skills as a Greek scholar. The fact is Dan that the vast majority of NT scholarship stands opposed the Robertson's and Monty's treatment of this verse. Even Robertson himself admitted that his treatment of this verse was driven by his soteriology rather than the grammatical structure. That in itself should sound an alarm for you. That should tell you something. Robertson has allowed his already established soteriology to influence his reading of the text rather than allowing the grammatical structure of the text to influence his soteriology. This is why he has been forced to attempt to restructure the text in such a way that will force it to fit his soteriology. This is not exegesis, this is eisegesis. Like I said Dan, I am certainly no Greek scholar and do not pretend to be one but if a second year Greek student can see the foolishness of Robertson's treatment of this verse then how obvious do you think this is to men such as Wallace, Bruce, Clark, Moule, Block, McCord, and a host of others of Roberson's class who stand diametrically opposed to his restructuring of this text and they do so on the basis of the grammar. Let me suggest that at some point you present Robertson's argument to a Greek scholar who is an atheist and see what his reaction is to it. The reason I suggest an atheist is because he is only going to be interested in the grammar. He has not theological or soteriologcal axe to grind. You may be surprised at his reaction.

I really do not see that there is anything further to be gained by us continuing this. I do however wish to express my appreciation for your conduct in this conversation. You have been every bit the gentleman. You have been courteous and respectful and I have enjoyed this time with you.
 

notuptome

Senior Member
May 17, 2013
15,050
2,538
113
Re: Since Acts 2:38 teaches that the baptism commanded is "for the remission of sins,

Paul is not even addressing baptism in Gal 17-9. You are still stuck with the fact that apostles both taught and practiced water baptism in during conversion. Why did they do this if it has no place in one's conversion. They not only administered it but commanded those they taught to submit to it. You see this with Peter in the conversion Carnelious in 10:48. Paul also baptized the Philippian Jailer, Lydia, Crispus, and Gaius after preaching the gospel to them. Why?
In none of your examples is the idea conveyed that water baptism was necessary to convey salvation to the souls who sought it. Each was converted and baptized in the Holy Spirit unto new life before they went into the water.

The grace of God is wholly sufficient to save souls. The Holy Spirit working through the gospel is wholly sufficient to bring men to a genuine saving knowledge of Christ. Paul wrote in Romans 1 that he was not ashamed of the gospel of Christ for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes.

I fully support water baptism in the NT but not for salvation. As a first step of obedience and a public testimony of receiving Christ with out question but if they are not saved before they go into the water they will come back out unsaved and wet.

To frustrate grace with water baptism is error and diminishes the finished work of Christ upon the cross.

You present yourself as something of a student of the Greek and yet you seem to miss the obvious simple truth of the gospel. I find that troubling.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
 

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,144
614
113
70
Alabama
Re: Since Acts 2:38 teaches that the baptism commanded is "for the remission of sins,

In none of your examples is the idea conveyed that water baptism was necessary to convey salvation to the souls who sought it. Each was converted and baptized in the Holy Spirit unto new life before they went into the water.

The grace of God is wholly sufficient to save souls. The Holy Spirit working through the gospel is wholly sufficient to bring men to a genuine saving knowledge of Christ. Paul wrote in Romans 1 that he was not ashamed of the gospel of Christ for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes.

I fully support water baptism in the NT but not for salvation. As a first step of obedience and a public testimony of receiving Christ with out question but if they are not saved before they go into the water they will come back out unsaved and wet.

To frustrate grace with water baptism is error and diminishes the finished work of Christ upon the cross.

You present yourself as something of a student of the Greek and yet you seem to miss the obvious simple truth of the gospel. I find that troubling.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
I really do not suppose there is any point in me continuing to show you anything in scripture. You have denied every text of scripture I have shown you. I have given you two texts that clearly connect forgiveness of sin with baptism and you simply disregarded them. If you are not going to believe what scripture tells you on this matter I am afraid there is nothing else I can offer that will make a difference.
 
E

ember

Guest
Re: Since Acts 2:38 teaches that the baptism commanded is "for the remission of sins,

Yes , water baptism is for the remission of sins , that is like catechism, pre-school. Pseudo-Christians have trouble believing any traditional dogma.

Interesting. And what part of your catechism gives you the right to bash other believers?

So awfully tired of those who think they alone have any measure of truth and they prove it by bad mouthing others

oh yeah
 
E

ember

Guest
Re: Since Acts 2:38 teaches that the baptism commanded is "for the remission of sins,

Would one of you experts kindly tell me why Jesus was baptized if baptism is for the remission of sins?

what's that? I can't hear you......
 

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,144
614
113
70
Alabama
Re: Since Acts 2:38 teaches that the baptism commanded is "for the remission of sins,

Would one of you experts kindly tell me why Jesus was baptized if baptism is for the remission of sins?

what's that? I can't hear you......
I would be happy to discuss this with you but unfortunately, I do not respond well to rudeness or sarcasm nor do I have any patience with childish behavior.
 
E

ember

Guest
Re: Since Acts 2:38 teaches that the baptism commanded is "for the remission of sins,

I would be happy to discuss this with you but unfortunately, I do not respond well to rudeness or sarcasm nor do I have any patience with childish behavior.
yeah well, I have never been rude to you but I read your post to me as rude

As an aside, I have been water baptized and baptized in the Holy Spirit

I have no idea why you sound so grumpy in your post
 

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,144
614
113
70
Alabama
Re: Since Acts 2:38 teaches that the baptism commanded is "for the remission of sins,

yeah well, I have never been rude to you but I read your post to me as rude

As an aside, I have been water baptized and baptized in the Holy Spirit

I have no idea why you sound so grumpy in your post
I'm not grumpy mam. I just do not appreciate the attitude you displayed in you post.

Originally Posted by ember

Would one of you experts kindly tell me why Jesus was baptized if baptism is for the remission of sins?

what's that? I can't hear you
If you are looking for information or a serious study, I will be happy to help you but I have little patience for someone who seems to be merely looking for a fight.
 

notuptome

Senior Member
May 17, 2013
15,050
2,538
113
Re: Since Acts 2:38 teaches that the baptism commanded is "for the remission of sins,

I really do not suppose there is any point in me continuing to show you anything in scripture. You have denied every text of scripture I have shown you. I have given you two texts that clearly connect forgiveness of sin with baptism and you simply disregarded them. If you are not going to believe what scripture tells you on this matter I am afraid there is nothing else I can offer that will make a difference.
You have shown only how you misapply those scriptures. You knowingly confuse the difference between Holy Spirit and water baptism. You do this to further an end of your choosing. If it were possible for water baptism to cleanse us from sin then Jesus Christ did not need to be crucified and die for mankind.

The blood of Jesus Christ is wholly sufficient to atone for our sins. The grace of God is wholly sufficient to save us from our sins. The Love and mercy of God imputes to us the very righteousness of God in Christ. You seek to pollute what God has done with earthly sacraments of water baptism. Your position on water baptism denies the sufficiency of the blood of Christ and the grace of God.

Clarify this for me since SeaBass rejects the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and adheres to water baptism as essential to salvation are you in agreement with him?

You carefully present scripture and couch it to represent your position but every instance of water baptism demonstrates that salvation and the baptism of the Holy Spirit preceded the water baptism. There is not one verse in the bible that teaches water baptism for salvation. Not one verse taken correctly and without bias would support your private interpretation of water baptism for salvation.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
 
E

ember

Guest
Re: Since Acts 2:38 teaches that the baptism commanded is "for the remission of sins,

I'm not grumpy mam. I just do not appreciate the attitude you displayed in you post.



If you are looking for information or a serious study, I will be happy to help you but I have little patience for someone who seems to be merely looking for a fight.


ok...you are not grumpy...got it

look how you answered this guy:

I really do not suppose there is any point in me continuing to show you anything in scripture. You have denied every text of scripture I have shown you. I have given you two texts that clearly connect forgiveness of sin with baptism and you simply disregarded them. If you are not going to believe what scripture tells you on this matter I am afraid there is nothing else I can offer that will make a difference.
but you don't think you are grumpy...plenty of people deny scripture I and others post right on here but not everyone slaps them with it

but you are not grumpy...its been a lovely exchange but no thank you
 
Last edited:

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,144
614
113
70
Alabama
Re: Since Acts 2:38 teaches that the baptism commanded is "for the remission of sins,

You have shown only how you misapply those scriptures. You knowingly confuse the difference between Holy Spirit and water baptism. You do this to further an end of your choosing. If it were possible for water baptism to cleanse us from sin then Jesus Christ did not need to be crucified and die for mankind.

The blood of Jesus Christ is wholly sufficient to atone for our sins. The grace of God is wholly sufficient to save us from our sins. The Love and mercy of God imputes to us the very righteousness of God in Christ. You seek to pollute what God has done with earthly sacraments of water baptism. Your position on water baptism denies the sufficiency of the blood of Christ and the grace of God.

Clarify this for me since SeaBass rejects the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and adheres to water baptism as essential to salvation are you in agreement with him?

You carefully present scripture and couch it to represent your position but every instance of water baptism demonstrates that salvation and the baptism of the Holy Spirit preceded the water baptism. There is not one verse in the bible that teaches water baptism for salvation. Not one verse taken correctly and without bias would support your private interpretation of water baptism for salvation.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
I really do not wish to continue this because at the moment I am quite busy. I am curious however to hear just what you think the baptism of the H.S. is.
 

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,144
614
113
70
Alabama
Re: Since Acts 2:38 teaches that the baptism commanded is "for the remission of sins,

ok...you are not grumpy...got it

look how you answered this guy:



but you don't think you are grumpy...plenty of people deny scripture I and others right on here but not everyone slaps them with it

but you are not grumpy...its been a lovely exchange but no thank you
Do you still want a response to your question?
 
E

ember

Guest
Re: Since Acts 2:38 teaches that the baptism commanded is "for the remission of sins,

ok oldhermit...going back and reading more of what you wrote, it seems you deny the baptism in the Holy Spirit

that would be cause for the conflict of spirit that appeared out of nowhere that you displayed to me

actually, it seems alot of folks on this thread do not agree with you...I have not posted to you before, so I am not familar with you or your style of posting

but frankly sir, it is you that has the tude...but no worries....just ignore me
 
E

ember

Guest
Re: Since Acts 2:38 teaches that the baptism commanded is "for the remission of sins,

Do you still want a response to your question?
I know the answer...or I would not have posted the question

do you suppose you are the only one who studies?

seriously...what's up with that.....kindly stop posting to me and I will give you the same regard

sometimes believers are like oil and water and this might be a case of that...I am sure you believe but
I disagree with your approach and the fact you accuse me of having an attitude for no reason...its in your perception
 

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,144
614
113
70
Alabama
Re: Since Acts 2:38 teaches that the baptism commanded is "for the remission of sins,

I know the answer...or I would not have posted the question

do you suppose you are the only one who studies?

seriously...what's up with that.....kindly stop posting to me and I will give you the same regard

sometimes believers are like oil and water and this might be a case of that...I am sure you believe but
I disagree with your approach and the fact you accuse me of having an attitude for no reason...its in your perception
Then I shall bother you no more mam.
 
E

ember

Guest
Re: Since Acts 2:38 teaches that the baptism commanded is "for the remission of sins,

Why do you purposely endeavor to misrepresent water baptism? In the Jewish religion there were many baptisms practiced. They were ritual washings in which a person would bathe himself before or as part of seeking forgiveness of the Lord. The High Priest himself would bathe before entering the holy part of the temple to offer sacrifices.

You are tormenting and perhaps causing to stumble those who are weaker in the faith. I really find your technique in using water baptism to provoke argument to be less than wise.

Water baptism for the Christian especially the Jewish Christian was a final baptism that severed all ties with the past. Many Jewish families today will strive with a family member who professes Christ as Messiah until they are water baptized. After that point they are considered dead some even going to the extreme of having a funeral for them.

For the cause of Christ
Roger


This bears repeating...so here it is again.

I agree
 

notuptome

Senior Member
May 17, 2013
15,050
2,538
113
Re: Since Acts 2:38 teaches that the baptism commanded is "for the remission of sins,

I really do not wish to continue this because at the moment I am quite busy. I am curious however to hear just what you think the baptism of the H.S. is.
I'll bet you are. Real busy finding an excuse to retreat or be exposed.

Baptism of the Holy Spirit John 20 Jesus breathed on them and said receive ye the Holy Spirit. Baptism of the Holy Spirit is when we believe and receive Christ as Savior. It is the quickening of our souls. We are changed from dead in trespass and sin to new life in Christ, life eternal.

The baptism of the Holy Spirit has been perverted by some to be like the filling of the Holy Spirit demonstrated in Acts 2:4 but one must first be baptized unto salvation before one can be filled with power to service. One baptism many fillings.

For the cause of Christ
Roger