justforcatholics.org

  • 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.
M

Metternich

Senior Member
#1
Jan 13, 2018
216
10
18
#1
I sent this email to the website above and did not get a response. Perhaps someone here can comment. Here is the email.



I just read the tract Refutation of Baptismal Regeneration and wanted to run past you a portion of a webpage discussing Acts 2:38. here it is.


[h=2]Comparative Passages Highlight the Truth[/h][FONT=&quot]In Matthew 26:28 there is an identical construction of eis, conjoined with the terms “forgiveness of sins,” just as in Acts 2:38.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]In the Matthew text, as he institutes the communion supper, Jesus said: “this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for manyunto remission of sins.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Even the renowned Baptist scholar, A. T. Robertson, who attempted to twist Acts 2:38 into conformity with his personal theological agenda, was forced to surrender his position when discussing Matthew 26:28. Of the controversial phrase he stated:[/FONT]
“Thepurposeof the shedding of his blood of the New Covenant was preciselyto remove (forgive) sins” (210; emphasis added).
​
[FONT=&quot]In his massiveHistorical Grammar,Robertson suggested that sometimes “grammar” has to give way to “theology” (389). Is that any way to treat the verbally inspired word of God? Yet that is how Robertson sought to dispose of Acts 2:38. For shame![/FONT]
[h=3]Conclusion[/h][FONT=&quot]It is a sad day in the history of the church of Jesus Christ when men — formerly sound, gospel preachers — begin to deny, both by pen and via pulpit, that baptism is required “for the remission of sins.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Mt 26:28
[/FONT]
[SUP]28 [/SUP]for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for(eis) the forgiveness of sins.

[FONT=&quot]Act 2:38[/FONT]

[SUP]38 [/SUP]And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for(eis) the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.



[FONT=&quot]What is your opinion of how Mt 26:28 sheds light on Acts 2:38? It seems scripture says baptism forgives sins.[/FONT]
 
notuptome

notuptome

Senior Member
#2
May 17, 2013
15,050
2,538
113
#2
Mat 28 not water but blood. Acts 2 not water but Holy Spirit.

The blood poured from His wounded side to make atonement for our sins.

The Holy Spirit baptizes us unto eternal life.

Water is a sustainer of life in the physical realm. Holy Spirit is the genesis of life in the sin dead soul.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
 
M

Metternich

Senior Member
#3
Jan 13, 2018
216
10
18
#3
notuptome said:
Mat 28 not water but blood. Acts 2 not water but Holy Spirit.

The blood poured from His wounded side to make atonement for our sins.

The Holy Spirit baptizes us unto eternal life.

Water is a sustainer of life in the physical realm. Holy Spirit is the genesis of life in the sin dead soul.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
Click to expand...

The greek for baptism means immersion or dipping. Phillip and the Ethiopian eunuch stopped when they found water to baptize the eunuch.
 
Nehemiah6

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
#4
Jul 18, 2017
24,420
12,905
113
#4
Metternich said:
What is your opinion of how Mt 26:28 sheds light on Acts 2:38? It seems scripture says baptism forgives sins.
Click to expand...
There are a few passages which strongly SUGGEST that baptism is for the remission of sins. That is only because conversion and water baptism were very closely tied in the New Testament, and those who believed were baptized on the same day. There are many examples of this in the NT.

However, Christians must ask themselves a very basic question: "If water could wash away sins, why was it necessary for the Lord Jesus Christ to shed His blood?"

The next question is: "If the forgiveness of sins is related to the cleansing of the soul, how can ordinary water possibly accomplish any cleansing in the spiritual realm?"

So let's see what Matthew 26:28 says: For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

This verse is conclusive and incontrovertible evidence that the water of baptism serves a different purpose than the remission of sins. It is EXTERNAL EVIDENCE that the sinner has fully identified himself with the Saviour in His death, burial, and resurrection, and will henceforth "walk in newness of life". He has died to his old life metaphorically and internally and is now a new creature in Christ.
 
Last edited:
Bladerunner

Bladerunner

Senior Member
#5
Aug 22, 2016
3,076
59
48
#5
Metternich said:
I sent this email to the website above and did not get a response. Perhaps someone here can comment. Here is the email.



I just read the tract Refutation of Baptismal Regeneration and wanted to run past you a portion of a webpage discussing Acts 2:38. here it is.


[h=2]Comparative Passages Highlight the Truth[/h][FONT="]In Matthew 26:28 there is an identical construction of eis, conjoined with the terms “forgiveness of sins,” just as in Acts 2:38.[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#000000][FONT="]In the Matthew text, as he institutes the communion supper, Jesus said: “this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for manyunto remission of sins.”[/FONT]
[FONT="]Even the renowned Baptist scholar, A. T. Robertson, who attempted to twist Acts 2:38 into conformity with his personal theological agenda, was forced to surrender his position when discussing Matthew 26:28. Of the controversial phrase he stated:[/FONT][/COLOR]
[INDENT]“The[B]purpose[/B]of the shedding of his blood of the New Covenant was precisely[B]to remove (forgive) sins[/B]” (210; emphasis added).
[/INDENT][COLOR=#000000][FONT="]In his massiveHistorical Grammar,Robertson suggested that sometimes “grammar” has to give way to “theology” (389). Is that any way to treat the verbally inspired word of God? Yet that is how Robertson sought to dispose of Acts 2:38. For shame![/FONT]
[h=3]Conclusion[/h][FONT="]It is a sad day in the history of the church of Jesus Christ when men — formerly sound, gospel preachers — begin to deny, both by pen and via pulpit, that baptism is required “for the remission of sins.”[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#000000][FONT="]Mt 26:28
[/FONT]
[SUP]28 [/SUP]for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for(eis) the forgiveness of sins.

[FONT="]Act 2:38[/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE]

[SUP]38 [/SUP]And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for(eis) the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.



[COLOR=#000000][FONT="]What is your opinion of how Mt 26:28 sheds light on Acts 2:38? It seems scripture says baptism forgives sins.[/FONT]
Click to expand...


As you read, keep in mind that the first part of Acts was a transition from Baptism by water to Baptism by Grace. As Acts progresses, you can see this unfold. Mat, Mark(Peter), Luke, John ministries were for Jewish people and the occasional Gentile that would convert. Paul However, is our Apostle and after Stevens death it is very evident that Jesus considers the Jewish Nation as a lost cause until the Fullness of the Church.




 
You must log in or register to reply here.