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

[oldhermit]

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

My error! I meant post #26.

I would certainly agree with 'in view toward' but if 'in view of' is meant to look backward to something this just does not correspond to the Greek preposition.

 

[oldhermit]

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

Acts 10:43-47 is a good place to begin. People who teach that Acts 2:38 must mean that baptism is in order to obtain the remission of sins usually end up dismissing the fact that these Gentiles have clearly received "the gift of the Holy Spirit" and in addition the gift of tongues, which is only for the body of Christ "prior to being water baptized" yet they reduce this to merely receiving the gift of tongues.

Would you mind if we saved this text to the last because there are other issues in this text that are going to pull us away from the immediate focus. Please do not think I am trying to avoid the text. I hope you know me better than that. I do look forward to looking at this text but there are a number of other passages I would like to look at before we get to Acts 10 if you would not mind.

 

[SarahM777]

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

Acts 10:43-47 is a good place to begin. People who teach that Acts 2:38 must mean that baptism is in order to obtain the remission of sins usually end up dismissing the fact that these Gentiles have clearly received "the gift of the Holy Spirit" and in addition the gift of tongues, which is only for the body of Christ "prior to being water baptized" yet they reduce this to merely receiving the gift of tongues.

But what was the SIGN GIVEN FOR in Acts 10? Wasn't it a SIGN for Peter to see that the Gentiles were being grafted into the body of believers? The Israelites ALREADY knew what the washings were for . (Under the Mosaic law people were cleansed by BOTH BLOOD AND WATER) They were NOT CLEANSED by BLOOD alone or by WATER alone but by BOTH.

The cleansing by BLOOD and WATER was a TYPE AND SHADOW of WHAT? Jesus death. John clearly says that when the soldier pierced His side with the spear out flowed BLOOD AND WATER. John also again ties in blood,water and the Spirit as the three that testify.

1 John 5

1 Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well.
2 This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands.
3 This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome,
4 for everyone born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith.
5 Who is it that overcomes the world? Only he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God.
6 This is the one who came by water and blood--Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth.
7 For there are three that testify:
8 the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.
9 We accept man's testimony, but God's testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God, which he has given about his Son.
10 Anyone who believes in the Son of God has this testimony in his heart. Anyone who does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because he has not believed the testimony God has given about his Son.
11 And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
12 He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.

Did God tell the Israelites that in order for their sins to be COVERED that a lamb had to be sacrificed and the blood had to be sprinkled on the mercy seat? Did they not in FAITH have to sprinkle blood on the mercy seat,and were their covered BEFORE or AFTER they did so? Can God now tell us to do the same and do so in like manner? Step out in FAITH and THEN He does when we obey out of faith? Why is baptism now REMOVED as an an act of faith?

 

[eternally-gratefull]

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

Still fails to address the change into the NT where righteousness is no longer by the law but by grace through faith. God made Christ to be sin for us that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him. 2 Cor 5:21 This is not received by water baptism but by imputation through grace. Freely bestowed upon all who seek it.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

true.. no one was ever saved by law. nor was righteousness ever done under the law. The law could only condemn. them as well as us.

 

[MarcR]

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

Even if I concede the causal use of εἰς, (which I'm not sure I do); we agree that 'in light of' or 'in recognition of' is a legitimate use of εἰς, and I'm willing to go with that.

Unless I misunderstood you, in your post #27 [ correction (26)], you seem to have acknowledged this as "correct".

Since you are usually consistent within your positions I'm prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt. Please clarify.

In my view acknowledgement as foundation for continuation is forward. Since 'A' is true, 'b' is now appropriste.

Since you are forgiven you should be baptized.

Okay, I got you. When I read that I saw 'in view of' as meaning looking forward toward something, not as looking back on it. That is why I agreed. I did not really pay that much attention to the scripture references you gave. If I had I would have recognized them. I guess that will teach me not to agree with something without fully reading what was said.

You still have not addressed my question re whether acknowledgement as a foundation for continuation may be regarded as forward.

 

[MarcR]

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

Even if I concede the causal use of εἰς, (which I'm not sure I do); we agree that 'in light of' or 'in recognition of' is a legitimate use of εἰς, and I'm willing to go with that.

Unless I misunderstood you, in your post #27 [ correction (26)], you seem to have acknowledged this as "correct".

Since you are usually consistent within your positions I'm prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt. Please clarify.

In my view acknowledgement as foundation for continuation is forward. Since 'A' is true, 'b' is now appropriste.

Since you are forgiven you should be baptized.

Okay, I got you. When I read that I saw 'in view of' as meaning looking forward toward something, not as looking back on it. That is why I agreed. I did not really pay that much attention to the scripture references you gave. If I had I would have recognized them. I guess that will teach me not to agree with something without fully reading what was said.

You still have not addressed my question re whether acknowledgement as a foundation for continuation may be regarded as forward.

I concede that acknowledgement in itself is backward

 

[oldhermit]

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

You still have not addressed my question re whether acknowledgement as a foundation for continuation may be regarded as forward.

I'm not sure I altogether sure I understand you question. Acknowledgement of what, forgiveness of sin??? Continuation of what forgiveness of sin??? I am not sure what you are asking. If you are asking me if baptism is an acknowledgement that sin has already been removed this would be completely opposite the definition of εἰς.

 

[SarahM777]

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

Can anyone please show from what all of scripture says,that the apostles ever showed that baptism was JUST a ceremony?

 

[oldhermit]

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

For those unfemilliar with the use of prepositions in NT Greek here is a chart of NT Greek prepositions and their functions which are relatively singularly directional in motion. None of which I have ever found to be rendered is such a way to give them the opposite direction than their definition allows.

Adapted from A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament
www.middletownbiblechurch.org

 

[MarcR]

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

I'm not sure I altogether sure I understand you question. Acknowledgement of what, forgiveness of sin??? Continuation of what forgiveness of sin??? I am not sure what you are asking. If you are asking me if baptism is an acknowledgement that sin has already been removed this would be completely opposite the definition of εἰς.

Acknowledgement that remission had occurred (from repentence) as a bases for baptism as the next step.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

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

Can anyone please show from what all of scripture says,that the apostles ever showed that baptism was JUST a ceremony?

well if water baptism was anything more. then no one in the OT was ever saved, and are all lost.

can anyone show me where God changed the way men are made right with him? Jesus fulfilled that way, he never changed it.

 

[SarahM777]

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

well if water baptism was anything more. then no one in the OT was ever saved, and are all lost.

can anyone show me where God changed the way men are made right with him? Jesus fulfilled that way, he never changed it.

It was always FAITH and LOVE that OBEYED. It's no DIFFERENT in the New testament and once again you have NOT SHOWN from scripture that the apostles only believed it was JUST a ceremony. And does God have the right to ask us to take a STEP of FAITH and when we take that step of FAITH then God acts? That goes throughout SCRIPTURE.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

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

eis,

Luke 11: 7. Children were with me in (eis) bed. It was not a future event, it already was active.

Matt 12: 41. Because they repented at (eis) the teaching. Again, past tense looking. (for Jonah had already taought them before the repented.

Many many more examples of this I am sure if one looks. people need to stop being so narrow looking.

we have not even looked at the vocabulary structure yet

 

[eternally-gratefull]

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

It was always FAITH and LOVE that OBEYED.

No, It has always been faith. Abraham and david both proven to be saved before they obeyed on command, They obeyed because they were saved, not to be saved.

It's no DIFFERENT in the New testament and once again you have NOT SHOWN from scripture that the apostles only believed it was JUST a ceremony. And does God have the right to ask us to take a STEP of FAITH

and when we take that step of FAITH then God acts? That goes throughout SCRIPTURE.

Your right it is no different. we are saved by faith due to our repentance. and good works LIKE water baptism come out from our salvation. they are a result of salvation. not a part of it.

if it is a part of it, we are saved by works. not faith. If you want to go around and boast of your baptism feel free. I was baptised by God himself. I can;t boast, because I did not do any work. GOD DID IT ALL.

 

[oldhermit]

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

Acknowledgement that remission had occurred (from repentence) as a bases for baptism as the next step.

Since εἰς is a preposition that inherently demands motion as opposed to ἐν which is always stationary it is then a directional pronoun. The question is then which direction is inherently connected with this preposition. The motion is always one that is carried forward. I have never found any preposition in NT Greek that is every translated in such a way that its motion is opposite that of its inherent meaning. Yet, this is what many try to do with εἰς in this verse. My question is "WHY?" If we insist that forgiveness of sin precedes baptism in this verse then the preposition that connects both remission of sin and baptism will have to be completely ignored because changing its directional function is grammatically impossible. The direction of the preposition in this verse places baptism before the remission of sin and there is simply no way to get around this grammatical construction. Baptism then is represented by the grammar as the causal agent and the forgiveness of sin is represented as resultant, not the other way around.

 

[SarahM777]

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

No, It has always been faith. Abraham and david both proven to be saved before they obeyed on command, They obeyed because they were saved, not to be saved.



Your right it is no different. we are saved by faith due to our repentance. and good works LIKE water baptism come out from our salvation. they are a result of salvation. not a part of it.

if it is a part of it, we are saved by works. not faith. If you want to go around and boast of your baptism feel free. I was baptised by God himself. I can;t boast, because I did not do any work. GOD DID IT ALL.

And once again you AVOIDED the question WHERE DID THE APOSTLES EVER SHOW THAT BAPTISM IS JUST A CEREMONY?

And once again it sounds like you are saying one CAN be saved WITHOUT obeying. Does God have the right to say DO THIS and THEN I WILL DO?

Where the sins of Israel COVERED BEFORE or AFTER the high priest sprinkled the blood on the mercy seat?

 

[eternally-gratefull]

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

And once again you AVOIDED the question WHERE DID THE APOSTLES EVER SHOW THAT BAPTISM IS JUST A CEREMONY?

And once again it sounds like you are saying one CAN be saved WITHOUT obeying. Does God have the right to say DO THIS and THEN I WILL DO?

Where the sins of Israel COVERED BEFORE or AFTER the high priest sprinkled the blood on the mercy seat?

why should I have to answer it? it is an invalid question with the rest of scripture taken. No one in the OT was saved by baptism. God did not change the way in the NT by forcing everyone to get wet first before they are saved. period.

Peter did at least one. When the gentiles recieved the HS BEFORE water baptism.

Paul did when he claimed that baptism was NOT PART OF THE GOSPEL.

If people do not want to look for what the word says, they will never see it.

 

[SarahM777]

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

why should I have to answer it? it is an invalid question with the rest of scripture taken. No one in the OT was saved by baptism. God did not change the way in the NT by forcing everyone to get wet first before they are saved. period.

Peter did at least one. When the gentiles recieved the HS BEFORE water baptism.

Paul did when he claimed that baptism was NOT PART OF THE GOSPEL.

If people do not want to look for what the word says, they will never see it.

It is a valid question. It may be a question you don't like but it's still a valid question. Does God require obedience to Him to be saved?

 

[SarahM777]

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

Peter did at least one. When the gentiles recieved the HS BEFORE water baptism.

You miss the reason WHY they received the Holy Spirit first. Peter NEVER in that passage says that baptism WAS NOT NEEDED NOR was it to be FORBIDDEN to the Gentiles WITHOUT circumcision. Circumcision was the sign that one was a PART of the old covenant. Remember Peter is an Israelite.

Acts 10

[SUP]44 [/SUP]While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. [SUP]45[/SUP]The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles. [SUP]46 [/SUP]For they heard them speaking in tongues[SUP][b][/SUP] and praising God.

Then Peter said, [SUP]47 [/SUP]“Surely no one can stand in the way of their being baptized with water. They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.” [SUP]48 [/SUP]So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.



No where in that passage does Peter dismiss BAPTISM as NOT BEING NEEDED.

 

[oldhermit]

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

Since εἰς is a preposition that inherently demands motion as opposed to ἐν which is always stationary it is then a directional pronoun. The question is then which direction is inherently connected with this preposition. The motion is always one that is carried forward. I have never found any preposition in NT Greek that is every translated in such a way that its motion is opposite that of its inherent meaning. Yet, this is what many try to do with εἰς in this verse. My question is "WHY?" If we insist that forgiveness of sin precedes baptism in this verse then the preposition that connects both remission of sin and baptism will have to be completely ignored because changing its directional function is grammatically impossible. The direction of the preposition in this verse places baptism before the remission of sin and there is simply no way to get around this grammatical construction. Baptism then is represented by the grammar as the causal agent and the forgiveness of sin is represented as resultant, not the other way around.

I noticed a typo in the second line so I guess I had better correct before Angela calls me out for it. LOL
The beginning of the second line should read a directional preposition not directional pronoun.