AT Roberson was wrong about the Greek word 'eis' for he allowed his theological bias get in the way of scholarship.
AT Robertson was right on and you have allowed your theological bias to get in the way of harmonizing scripture with scripture before reaching the proper conclusion. Faith in Jesus Christ "implied in genuine repentance" (rather than water baptism) brings the remission of sins and under the New Covenant, brings the gift of the Holy Spirit (Luke 3:3; 24:47; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9). *Perfect Harmony* Are you going to continue to ignore Matthew 3:11? "I baptize you with water for (eis) "in order to obtain" repentance or "in reference to/in regards to" repentance? Does baptism obtain repentance? If you can believe that then you can believe anything!
Mt 26:28 "For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."
Roberson had no problem understand eis means "in order to obtain" in Mt 26:28 for he understood the impossibility he would create by trying to make it mean "because". So Roberson changed the meaning of eis as he needed to make it conveniently fit his theology.
Words in scripture do not all get a broad brushed application in every verse. For (eis) can look forward or backwards, depending on the context. Robertson knows that scripture must harmonize with scripture or else we have a contradiction in scripture. Your "sins remitted in H20/dipped or condemned" theology negates many passages of scripture.
The Pharisees by rejecting John's baptism was rejecting GOD's COUNSEL as the the same would be true of those that reject Christ's baptism of His great commission, Mt 28:19,20; Mk 16:15,16.
Like I already said, By refusing baptism, the Pharisees and lawyers demonstrated that they rejected John's call to repentance (which is the means of having their sins remitted, which is signified in baptism, which demonstrates that they rejected God Himself). Luke 7:29 - When all the people and the tax collectors heard this, they
justified God/acknowledged God's justice, (SIGNIFIED BY) having been baptized with the baptism of John. 30 But the Pharisees and the lawyers
rejected God's purpose for themselves, (SIGNIFIED BY) not having been baptized by John. Plain and simple.
Luke's account gives information that by the knowledge the thief had of Christ he was once possibly a disciple himself that fell away. I am not saying the thief was for certain a disciple but the knowledge he had can make it POSSIBLE that he once was.
That's all you have? A remote possibility? It's also a remote possibility that Hitler repented just before he died too, right? You continue to grasp for straws.
The bible does not say with any certainty if the thief was ever a disciple or not, so all anyone can do is make assumptions about it as you are.
Being crucified as a thief, mocking, blaspheming and shaking his head at Jesus is much more than an assumption. That's no disciple of Jesus! But later he repented and believed.
Those in Jn 6:66 "walked with Him no more". This does not mean the thief was once a disciple that fell away, but now finding himself in his condemned state next to his former Master repent of his sins and Jesus forgave them for he had the power while on earth to do so.
Don't forget verse 64 - But there are some of you who
do not believe. For Jesus
knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him. It's no surprise that they left.
The thief:
1) was not living under the NT gospel, Heb 9:16,17, but under the OT law
2) at the time of the thief Christ was still ON EARTH perosnally forgiving sins
The thief was saved through faith/believing in Him before the cross (Luke 9:50; John 3:18) and we are saved through faith/believing in Him after the cross (Ephesians 2:8; Acts 10:43). Quit trying to make it complicated.
Two reasons no one today can claim they are saved in the same manner as the the thief.
Today under the NT the gospel is God's power to save and who today can be saved as the thief OUTSIDE- WITHOUT the gospel? No one.
Smoke screen to discredit the thief being saved through faith apart from water baptism. Quit fighting the truth and BELIEVE.
Christ's NT clearly makes belief in the resurrection, repentance, Lk 13:3,5; confession, Mt 10:32,33 and baptism necessary for salvation. This does not contradict the issue with the thief for again the thief was not under the NT that requires these things.
Do I need to share this with you again? Pay attention this time:
Repentance actually precedes saving belief in Christ. Through poor semantics and flawed hermeneutics, you reverse the order of repentance and faith in receiving salvation. To the contrary we find: Matthew 21:32 - For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not
repent and believe him. Mark 1:15 -
Repent and believe the gospel (not believe the gospel then afterwards repent). Acts 20:21 - testifying both to Jews and to Greeks of
repentance toward God and of
faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. *Notice the order.
In Matthew 10:32-33, the broader context of this passage relates to the fact that the Pharisees had continuously denied Jesus while the disciples spoke about Him in every city they visited. We might paraphrase His teaching this way: "Whoever confesses me before men (such as you disciples), I will confess him before my Father in heaven. But whoever denies me before men (like these Pharisees do on every occasion they get), I will deny him before my Father in heaven. Those who confess Jesus are those who recognize Him as being the true Messiah and trust exclusively in Him for salvation. Those who deny Jesus (and those who give mere lip service confession) but refuse to trust exclusively in Him alone for salvation place themselves beyond any possibility of salvation, since salvation is found only in Him (John 3:16; 10:9; 14:6). The word for "deny" is an aorist tense. This points to the fact that Jesus is not talking about a single instance of denial (as was the case with Peter, who actually denied Him three times - Luke 22:34), but is referring to life in its entirety. Hence, the person who throughout his life denies Christ (as was typically the case with the Pharisess and includes unbelievers who may even give mere "lip service confession" - Matthew 7:21-23, but lack saving faith) will be denied by Christ before the Father.
MK 16:16 is a compound sentence with different subjects:
Mk 16a the subject is salvation with two necessary conditions; belief AND baptism
Mk 16b is about condemnation with one condition to be met, unbelief.
Again, in Mark 16:16, He who believes and is baptized will be saved (general cases without making a qualification for the unusual case of someone who believes but is not baptized) but he who does not believe will be condemned. The omission of baptized with "does not believe" shows that Jesus does not make baptism essential to salvation. Condemnation rests on unbelief, not on baptism. So salvation rests on belief. NOWHERE does the Bible say "baptized or condemned." If water baptism is absolutely required for salvation, then why did Jesus not mention it in the following verses? (3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26). What is the ONE requirement that Jesus mentions 9 different times in each of these complete statements? BELIEVES. *What happened to baptism? *Hermeneutics. Continue to meditate on Acts 10:43-47; 11:17-18; 15:8-9.
So if one desires to be saved then he looks to 16a and believes and be baptized.
If one desires to be lost then he looks to 16b and simply does not believe. He does not have to not believe and not be baptized to be lost, simple unbelief will do it.
If he who believes in Him will be saved (John 3:16,18,36; 6:40,47; 11:25,26; 10:43; 13:39; 16:31) then he who believes and is baptized will be saved as well. Show me just ONE verse in the Bible that says he who is not baptized will be condemned. We find this with repentance (Luke 13:3) and belief (John 3:18) so why not baptism? hhmmm...
Since Jesus made belief a prerequisite to being baptized then an unbeliever cannot be baptized.
Yet unbelievers still get water baptized in various cults and false religions. They are unqualified to be baptized, but they do it anyway, because they trust in the baptism rather than the Savior.
So when Christ said "he that believeth not" this phrase includes not being baptized since the unbeliever cannot be baptized.
False. Unbelievers get water baptized all the time in false religions that call themselves Christian. Your faulty human logic misses the mark.