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

[mailmandan]

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

You are still not dealing with the question I asked you.

There is really nothing to deal with. Paul did not say that there is only one baptism that exists, period. Matthew 3:11 mentions 3 different baptisms.

If there is now only one baptism which one did the apostles continue to practice throughout the book of Acts? If the only baptism that is valid is Holy Spirit baptism then why did the apostles continue to teach and practice water baptism in Acts.

I'm not hearing Paul say that only one baptism is valid today (as if Spirit baptism no longer takes place and all we have left is water baptism or vise versa). Water baptism continued to be practiced throughout the book of Acts and believers continued to receive Spirit baptism, by which they were placed into the body of Christ and sealed in Him (Acts 10:45-47; 11:17; 1 Corinthians 12:13; Ephesians 1:13). There is only one baptism that places believers into the body of Christ and unites all believers into one body and that is Spirit baptism, not water baptism, as I have already showed you. Read closely again:

Ephesians 4:5 - One Lord, one faith, one baptism.

1 Corinthians 12:13 - For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body..

If there is only one, then only one can be valid. Why is it so hard for three people to answer this simple question. All anyone has done is try to talk around this question but no one seems willing to answer it.

Paul is not saying that there is only one baptism that exists, period, as you are assuming. I answered your question and it was not hard.

 

[oldhermit]

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

Greek scholar AT Robertson and Greek scholar Daniel Wallace and Greek scholar E Calvin Beisner have had more than a couple of years and Greek and they do not agree with you. Not all Greek scholars who have had more than a couple of years of Greek agree with you so your argument is inconclusive and if both repentance and water baptism "both" produce the forgiveness of sins, then Acts 2:38 is in contradiction with Acts 3:19 which connects repentance (not baptism) to conversion/sins blotted out; and Acts 10:43 which connects believes in Him (implied in repentance, not baptism) with remission of sins. Also, in Acts 10:45-47, we see that these Gentiles received the gift of the Holy Spirit (compare with Acts 2:38 - the gift of the Holy Spirit) AND spoke in tongues, which is a spiritual gift for the body of Christ only (1 Corinthians 12) BEFORE they were water baptized. Acts 11:17 states they received the gift of the Holy Spirit when they believed on the Lord Jesus Christ (compare with Acts 16:31 - believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved) and this happened BEFORE they were water baptized. Acts 11:18 refers to this as repentance unto life. Repentance "change of mind" and the new direction of this change of mind is faith in Christ/believing on the Lord Jesus Christ (two sides to the same experience). In Acts 15:8 we read that God gave them the Holy Spirit...9 purifying their hearts by faith, not baptism. It amazes me to see how people are willing to have the Bible contradict itself simply to accommodate a biased view of one verse. The Bible says numerous times that we are saved through faith/when we believe in Him (John 3:15,16,18,36; 6:40,47; 11:25,26; Acts 10:43; 13:39; 16:31; Romans 1:16; 3:22-30; 4:5-6; 1 Corinthians 1:21; Ephesians 2:8,9 etc.. and this is established before water baptism or any works are accomplished, so if we are not saved until we accomplish a work after we believe in Him/place faith in Christ for salvation, then these numerous verses in the Bible would be in error, which cannot be the case. Bottom line - Scripture MUST harmonize with other Scripture or else we have a contradiction.

I know that both Wallace and Robertson do not agree with my view on Acts 2:38. Now, I do not pretend to be a Greek scholar but I know enough abut the language to know how to follow the simple rules of grammar. I know Robertson makes an attempt at separating the two verbs and tries to argue this on the grounds that they do not agree in person and number. He even suggests that "for the remission of sins" may be parenthetical but Robertson is simply wrong here. Here is the argument that Robertson makes.

"Because the verbs "repent" and "receive" are both 2nd person plural forms, and "be baptized" is 3rd person singular, then the phrase "and be baptized...your sins" is a parenthetical expression separating the two main verbal ideas (repent & receive). Therefore, Peter is actually telling them to repent and they would then be able to receive the Holy Spirit, signifying their acceptance with God (Acts 10:44-48). Then, "because your sins have been [already] remitted, be baptized" as a witness to others of the fact."

Robertson's treatment of this verse clearly demonstrates that he is approaching this verse from a soteriological bias rather than and as a linguistic scholar. His work in this passage is purely second rate and drew a great deal of criticism from his colleagues like Wallace, not only for his treatment of εἰς but for his attempted reconstruction of this verse. If even a second year Greek student can see through this then how obvious to you think it was to his peers? I take nothing away from Robertson as a linguistic scholar but this is a good example of one abandoning his scholarship in favor of a biased soteriology. Robertson KNOWS what this text says and he simply does not like what it says. This is why he goes trough all of these linguistic gymnastics to try to make it say something it simply does not say but in truth, he knows better than than this. Now, if you still feel Robertson is correct in this then I will be happy to defend the construction of the Greek as it appears in the text.

 

[oldhermit]

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

There is really nothing to deal with. Paul did not say that there is only one baptism that exists, period. Matthew 3:11 mentions 3 different baptisms.

I'm not hearing Paul say that only one baptism is valid today (as if Spirit baptism no longer takes place and all we have left is water baptism or vise versa). Water baptism continued to be practiced throughout the book of Acts and believers continued to receive Spirit baptism, by which they were placed into the body of Christ and sealed in Him (Acts 10:45-47; 11:17; 1 Corinthians 12:13; Ephesians 1:13). There is only one baptism that places believers into the body of Christ and unites all believers into one body and that is Spirit baptism, not water baptism, as I have already showed you. Read closely again:

Ephesians 4:5 - One Lord, one faith, one baptism.

1 Corinthians 12:13 - For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body..

Paul is not saying that there is only one baptism that exists, period, as you are assuming. I answered your question and it was not hard.

You know good and well Paul says there is only one baptism. You just do not like what he said because this challenges you to make a choice between the baptism of the Holy Spirit (which you do not understand and this is the reason for you position) and water baptism. There is a reason Paul says there is only one baptism.

 

[SeaBass]

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

I know that both Wallace and Robertson do not agree with my view on Acts 2:38. Now, I do not pretend to be a Greek scholar but I know enough abut the language to know how to follow the simple rules of grammar. I know Robertson makes an attempt at separating the two verbs and tries to argue this on the grounds that they do not agree in person and number. He even suggests that "for the remission of sins" may be parenthetical but Robertson is simply wrong here. Here is the argument that Robertson makes.

"Because the verbs "repent" and "receive" are both 2nd person plural forms, and "be baptized" is 3rd person singular, then the phrase "and be baptized...your sins" is a parenthetical expression separating the two main verbal ideas (repent & receive). Therefore, Peter is actually telling them to repent and they would then be able to receive the Holy Spirit, signifying their acceptance with God (Acts 10:44-48). Then, "because your sins have been [already] remitted, be baptized" as a witness to others of the fact."

Robertson's treatment of this verse clearly demonstrates that he is approaching this verse from a soteriological bias rather than and as a linguistic scholar. His work in this passage is purely second rate and drew a great deal of criticism from his colleagues like Wallace, not only for his treatment of εἰς but for his attempted reconstruction of this verse. If even a second year Greek student can see through this then how obvious to you think it was to his peers? I take nothing away from Robertson as a linguistic scholar but this is a good example of one abandoning his scholarship in favor of a biased soteriology. Robertson KNOWS what this text says and he simply does not like what it says. This is why he goes trough all of these linguistic gymnastics to try to make it say something it simply does not say but in truth, he knows better than than this. Now, if you still feel Robertson is correct in this then I will be happy to defend the construction of the Greek as it appears in the text.

I never really understood any validity in this "singular" and "plural" argument. The people Peter commanded to repent is the exact same people he commanded to be baptized so they were all to repent and be baptized whether addressed in the singular or plural.....the conjunction "and" making "repent" inseparable from "be baptized". The imperative to be baptized would make baptism essential even if baptism was not for remission of sins. If one can disobey the imperative to be baptized yet still be saved, then why not disobey the imperative to believe or disobey the imperative to repent and still be saved also? Why not just disobey every imperative given by God and yet still be saved?


38Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

With the underlined/bold "you" above being plural, Peter is saying "You all repent, and each of you all be baptized..."

As I see it, Peter is using a plural with BOTH 'repent' and 'be baptized' negating the singular-plural argument altogether.

 

[oldhermit]

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

I never really understood any validity in this "singular" and "plural" argument. The people Peter commanded to repent is the exact same people he commanded to be baptized so they were all to repent and be baptized whether addressed in the singular or plural.....the conjunction "and" making repent inseparable from be baptized. The imperative to be baptized would make baptism essential even if baptism was not for remission of sins. If one can disobey the imperative to be baptized yet still be saved, then why not disobey the imperative to believe or disobey the imperative to repent and still be saved also? Why not just disobey every imperative given by God and yet still be saved?


38Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

With the underlined/bold "you" above being plural, Peter is saying "You all repent, and each of you all be baptized..."

As I see it, Peter is using a plural with BOTH 'repent' and 'be baptized' negating the singular-plural argument altogether.

There is no validity to that argument at all. This is a fabricated argument by Robertson in an attempt the reconstruct the text. I will address this argument at length later if I get a response from the previous post.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

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

You know as well as I do that fleshly circumcision is no longer binding. Paul said there is only one baptism. Did he lie about that or was he simply mistaken?

see what I mean. You refuse to even look at what is mentioned. It never saved anyone in the OT, (which was the context of my question) yet you refuse to even look at it. and instead made a strawman argument

Again, It has been proven to you. there were MANY baptisms in the NT mentioned. Paul says only one really matters, So which one is it out of the many mentioned?

Just like in the OT. Where spiritual circumcision is what saved them, not the physical. Spiritual baptism is what saves us, Not the physical.

Yet it does not negate the fact God commanded us to get baptised. so we do it in obedience to him.

 

[oldhermit]

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

see what I mean. You refuse to even look at what is mentioned. It never saved anyone in the OT, (which was the context of my question) yet you refuse to even look at it. and instead made a strawman argument

Again, It has been proven to you. there were MANY baptisms in the NT mentioned. Paul says only one really matters, So which one is it out of the many mentioned?

Just like in the OT. Where spiritual circumcision is what saved them, not the physical. Spiritual baptism is what saves us, Not the physical.

Yet it does not negate the fact God commanded us to get baptised. so we do it in obedience to him.

Paul said there is only one baptism. Did he lie about that or was he simply mistaken?

 

[eternally-gratefull]

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

Paul said there is only one baptism. Did he lie about that or was he simply mistaken?

he said there is one faith (one that saves) and one baptism (one that saves)

you cant get away from the fact that paul also said he was sent to give the gospel. NOT TO BAPTIZE. thus your in a circle of unreasonable thought. and your argument is fruitless. considering again, many baptisms were mentioned in the NT.

 

[SarahM777]

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

see what I mean. You refuse to even look at what is mentioned. It never saved anyone in the OT, (which was the context of my question) yet you refuse to even look at it. and instead made a strawman argument

Again, It has been proven to you. there were MANY baptisms in the NT mentioned. Paul says only one really matters, So which one is it out of the many mentioned?

Just like in the OT. Where spiritual circumcision is what saved them, not the physical. Spiritual baptism is what saves us, Not the physical.

Yet it does not negate the fact God commanded us to get baptised. so we do it in obedience to him.

Do you realize what you are saying? Please think this through,pre cross you have all the ritual,ceremonial laws not one of us would ever say those continued on,many of the people did obey those laws. What then would God now set up a NEW CEREMONY IN WHICH HE DOES NOTHING IN after removing all the rest? Does that MAKE ANY SENSE whatsoever? Never mind that the same apostles that God showed that the OLD was removed and YET they still continued baptizing people in WATER.
Why did they?

 

[SarahM777]

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

he said there is one faith (one that saves) and one baptism (one that saves)

you cant get away from the fact that paul also said he was sent to give the gospel. NOT TO BAPTIZE. thus your in a circle of unreasonable thought. and your argument is fruitless. considering again, many baptisms were mentioned in the NT.

Just because Paul did baptize many himself does NOT mean that the others that were with him DID NOT do the baptizing. Same thing as when Jesus Himself did not baptize but the Lord gave it to the disciples to do.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

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

Do you realize what you are saying? Please think this through,pre cross you have all the ritual,ceremonial laws not one of us would ever say those continued on,many of the people did obey those laws. What then would God now set up a NEW CEREMONY IN WHICH HE DOES NOTHING IN after removing all the rest? Does that MAKE ANY SENSE whatsoever? Never mind that the same apostles that God showed that the OLD was removed and YET they still continued baptizing people in WATER.
Why did they?

No sarah, this is what does not make sense.

Pre-Christ God instituted ceremony and ritual. and demanded his people do those things, YET NOT ONE OF THOSE THINGS had a part to do in ANYONE'S SALVATION.

Now. After Christ dies, and is resurrected/ He institutes different ceremonies and rituals. Only this time. ONE IS REQUIRED FOR SALVATION, while the rest is not.

THAT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

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

Just because Paul did baptize many himself does NOT mean that the others that were with him DID NOT do the baptizing. Same thing as when Jesus Himself did not baptize but the Lord gave it to the disciples to do.

That does not matter, what matters is that paul said baptism is NOT a part of the gospel of Christ. He separated the two. If as you claim, baptism is part of the salvation process. Paul lied and made a huge error

 

[SarahM777]

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

No sarah, this is what does not make sense.

Pre-Christ God instituted ceremony and ritual. and demanded his people do those things, YET NOT ONE OF THOSE THINGS had a part to do in ANYONE'S SALVATION.

Now. After Christ dies, and is resurrected/ He institutes different ceremonies and rituals. Only this time. ONE IS REQUIRED FOR SALVATION, while the rest is not.

THAT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE.

Sorry EG but you are the one that does not make sense. You and those that are in agreement with you preach TWO baptisms. You preach the baptism of the Spirit and then you ALSO preach a SECOND BAPTISM commanded by Christ for show. That boiled down is what you all preach. You preach TWO BAPTISMS not one.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

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

Sorry EG but you are the one that does not make sense. You and those that are in agreement with you preach TWO baptisms. You preach the baptism of the Spirit and then you ALSO preach a SECOND BAPTISM commanded by Christ for show. That boiled down is what you all preach. You preach TWO BAPTISMS not one.

No, You do not make sense. There has always been two circumcisions. and there has always been two baptisms. One physical which is a symbol of faith. and one is spiritual, which saves.

Again, To say all those things in the OT (works) never had a part in anyone's salvation, when it was so ritualistic. yet one (work) in the NT is required for salvation. Which has done away with ritual. Makes no sense at all. What it boils down to is you want credit for saving yourself, so you refuse to see what is really said about a transliterated word. And do not translate it properly (you give it its religeous meaning)

 

[oldhermit]

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

he said there is one faith (one that saves) and one baptism (one that saves)

you cant get away from the fact that paul also said he was sent to give the gospel. NOT TO BAPTIZE. thus your in a circle of unreasonable thought. and your argument is fruitless. considering again, many baptisms were mentioned in the NT.

No, you are saying that. Paul said there is only one baptism. Did he lie about that or was he simply mistaken?

 

[eternally-gratefull]

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

No, you are saying that. Paul said there is only one baptism. Did he lie about that or was he simply mistaken?

No, Because there was not one baptism. There were many baptisms being preached throughout the whole NT. So you have a major issue.

Either paul lied. and is a false prophet.

Or he meant what he said there is one baptism (which saves) just like there is one faith (which saves) (remembering faith without works is dead, and can not save, thus there is only one real faith)

So tell us, when are you going to place faith in God. and not your water baptism?

 

[oldhermit]

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

No, Because there was not one baptism. There were many baptisms being preached throughout the whole NT. So you have a major issue.

Either paul lied. and is a false prophet.

Or he meant what he said there is one baptism (which saves) just like there is one faith (which saves) (remembering faith without works is dead, and can not save, thus there is only one real faith)

So tell us, when are you going to place faith in God. and not your water baptism?

Paul says there is and you say there is not, who do you think I should believe? Here is a list of things Paul declares exist in singular proportion, "There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call— one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all," To the same degree there is only one God, one faith, one hope, one body, and one Spirit, there is also ONE baptism. You need to stop trying to qualify what Paul said and just listen to what he said. Since Paul does not qualify any of these we have no right to do so either. It is obvious that you simply do not care what Paul says about this so there is really no point in you and I continuing to discuss this because I am going to continue to hold you feet over the fire on this issue. You simply refuse to acknowledge what Paul says here. I will give you the last word on this and then I will waste no further time on you in this matter.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

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

Paul says there is and you say there is not, who do you think I should believe? Here is a list of things Paul declares exist in singular proportion, "There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call— one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all," To the same degree there is only one God, one faith, one hope, one body, and one Spirit, there is also ONE baptism. You need to stop trying to qualify what Paul said and just listen to what he said. Since Paul does not qualify any of these we have no right to do so either. It is obvious that you simply do not care what Paul says about this so there is really no point in you and I continuing to discuss this because I am going to continue to hold you feet over the fire on this issue. You simply refuse to acknowledge what Paul says here. I will give you the last word on this and then I will waste no further time on you in this matter.

You ignore the very elementary principles of the gospel, (which paul states water baptism is not a part of) and you ignore all the baptisms which occurred or were spoken of in the NT. Or the MANY FAITHS there were in the NT (funny how paul said there was just one, but again, you ignore that part)

Your stuck. Your the one who does not care what Paul said. because you ignore what he said in other areas concerning spiritual baptism. and try to replace spirit baptism with water physical baptism.

Again I ask you. would you rather have the perfect baptism performed by God. Or the physical imperfect baptism performed by men?

The choice is up to you

by the way, Why have you not showed your study of the word Baptizo in ancient greek literature? Can't find any?

 

[SeaBass]

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

That does not matter, what matters is that paul said baptism is NOT a part of the gospel of Christ. He separated the two. If as you claim, baptism is part of the salvation process. Paul lied and made a huge error

Paul did not use the noun "baptism" and never said "baptism is not a part of the gospel"

What Paul DID say is "I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;"

Why was Paul thankful he baptized none but Crispus and Gaius? Because baptism is not part of the gospel? No. Paul was thankful he had baptized none but Crispus and Gaius "Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name". Some at Corinth were following men who baptized them rather than following Christ. It most likely was Paul's practice to allow others to baptize to avoid creating "Paulites".

1 Cor 1:13, Paul used the necessity of (1) the crucifixtion and (2) being baptized in the name of Christ to heal the division at the Corinthian congregation. If you are gong to be "OF" someone then two things must be true of that someone, that someone must be (1) crucified for you and you must be (2) baptized in that someone's name. Since these two things are only true of Christ then no one can be "OF" any man. So if you are "OF" Christ then (1) Christ must have been crucified for you and (2) you must have been baptized in the name of Christ.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

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

Paul did not use the noun "baptism" and never said "baptism is not a part of the gospel"

What Paul DID say is "I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;"

Why was Paul thankful he baptized none but Crispus and Gaius? Because baptism is not part of the gospel? No. Paul was thankful he had baptized none but Crispus and Gaius "Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name". Some at Corinth were following men who baptized them rather than following Christ. It most likely was Paul's practice to allow others to baptize to avoid creating "Paulites".

1 Cor 1:13, Paul used the necessity of (1) the crucifixtion and (2) being baptized in the name of Christ to heal the division at the Corinthian congregation. If you are gong to be "OF" someone then two things must be true of that someone, that someone must be (1) crucified for you and you must be (2) baptized in that someone's name. Since these two things are only true of Christ then no one can be "OF" any man. So if you are "OF" Christ then (1) Christ must have been crucified for you and (2) you must have been baptized in the name of Christ.

1 Corinthians 1:17
For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.

Funny how as if baptism was part of the gospel as you claim it is (being it is essential) that paul was sent to save the gentile people. yet was not sent to do the very thing which could save them. Also funny how he claimed baptism is NOT a part of the gospel.

Nice try though