Baptisms

[oldhermit]

In regards to Acts 2:38, Greek scholar A. T. Robertson said - 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). "One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not. My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission. 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." The illustrations of both usages are numerous in the N.T. and the Koin, generally (Robertson, Grammar, page 592).

Greek scholar E Calvin Beisner said - In Peter’s command, the verb repent (Greek metanohvsate, metanoēsate) is second-person plural. Adopting a Southern dialect for a moment, we can translate it “Y’all repent.” The verb be baptized(baptisqhvtw, baptisthētō), however, is third-person singular. We can translate it, for emphasis’ sake, “let him [or her] be baptized.”

In the phrase for the forgiveness of your sins, the word your (uJmwÇn, humōn) is second-person plural again. In that Southern dialect, it would translate, “for the forgiveness of y’all’s sins.”Imagine the implications of ignoring this switch from second-person plural to third-person singular and back. Since the command be baptized is third-person singular, and the pronoun your in your sins is second-person plural, the sense would be that each one should be baptized for the forgiveness of not only his own sins but also the sins of all the others there. Mormons may think they can be baptized for the forgiveness of others’ sins, but Peter certainly didn’t teach that!

Some object to this reasoning by pointing out that be baptized is followed by every one of you (e”kastoV uJmwÇn, hekastos humōn), and that in that phrase you (uJmwÇn, humōn) is second-person plural.6 Wouldn’t it follow, then, that the connection is between this you and the forgiveness of your sins?'

That ignores the grammar, too. 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

Greek scholar Daniel Wallace explains in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: It is possible that to a first-century Jewish audience (as well as to Peter), the idea of baptism might incorporate both the spiritual reality and the physical symbol (although only the reality remits sins). In other words, when one spoke of baptism, he usually meant both ideas—the reality and the ritual. Peter is shown to make the strong connection between these two in chapters 10 and 11. In 11:15-16 he recounts the conversion of Cornelius and friends, pointing out that at the point of their conversion they were baptized by the Holy Spirit. After he had seen this, he declared, “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit…” (10:47). The point seems to be that if they have had the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit via spiritual baptism, there ought to be a public testimony/acknowledgment via water baptism as well. This may not only explain Acts 2:38 (viz., that Peter spoke of both reality and picture, though only the reality removes sins), but also why the NT speaks of only baptized believers (as far as we can tell): Water baptism is not a cause of salvation, but a picture; and as such it serves both as a public acknowledgment (by those present) and a public confession (by the convert) that one has been Spirit baptized.

Yes, you and I have been through all of this before. So who is to be believed? You or these Greek scholars? Not all Greek scholars are in agreement with you and your interpretation of Acts 2:38 is not in harmony with Acts 3:19; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31; 26:18). Scripture MUST harmonize with Scripture or else we have a contradiction. That ultimately decides it for me. I refuse to negate these multiple clear passages of Scripture in order to accommodate one particular biased interpretation of Acts 2:38 that does not harmonize with these and many other passages of Scripture.

You seem to have left out the fact that Wallace, Bruce, Clark, Moule, Block, McCord, and a host of other Greek scholars of Roberson's class adamently disagreed with Robertson' treatment of this passage even though as you point out, Wallace himself did not believe that baptism was essential. I have the utmost respect for Robertson as a Greek scholar but on this point, he is simply wrong. Regardless of one's views on baptism it still does not change what this text says. Try as they might, people have challenged this text for many years but it still says what it says. "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."

 

[Grace777x70]

Does Acts 2:38 prove baptismal remission? No, it doesn’t even support it as part of a cumulative case. — E. Calvin Beisner

Water baptism is not a cause of salvation, but a picture; and as such it serves both as a public acknowledgment (by those present) and a public confession (by the convert) that one has been Spirit baptized.

Scripture MUST harmonize with Scripture or else we have a contradiction. That ultimately decides it for me. I refuse to negate these multiple clear passages of Scripture in order to accommodate one particular biased interpretation of Acts 2:38 that does not harmonize with these and many other passages of Scripture.

Well done Dan! To me the most vivid point is in green above. We must always let clear multiple scriptures be our guide and if an obscure scripture seems to contradict the clear scriptures - then this means we are not interpreting it correctly because we have a religious bias. As we wait on the Lord in this matter - Holy Spirit, He will reveal how this fits in with the known truth about the gospel of the grace of Christ.

Some things in scripture are progressive in nature too. As the disciples matured in the Lord - the more they knew about Christ and what He had done. Even after telling them 17 times He was going to die - they still didn't believe or understand what He was saying.

None knew about Christ being in us like the revelation that the Lord gave to Paul. Christ in us - the hope of glory is the mystery that we need to get a revelation of and what all that means to us because of our new creation in Christ.

 

[roaringkitten]

Well done Dan! To me the most vivid point is in green above. We must always let clear multiple scriptures be our guide and if an obscure scripture seems to contradict the clear scriptures - then this means we are not interpreting it correctly because we have a religious bias. As we wait on the Lord in this matter - Holy Spirit, He will reveal how this fits in with the known truth about the gospel of the grace of Christ.

Some things in scripture are progressive in nature too. As the disciples matured in the Lord - the more they knew about Christ and what He had done. Even after telling them 17 times He was going to die - they still didn't believe or understand what He was saying.

None knew about Christ being in us like the revelation that the Lord gave to Paul. Christ in us - the hope of glory is the mystery that we need to get a revelation of and what all that means to us because of our new creation in Christ.

Acts 2:38 is Satan's favorite verse when it comes to baptismal regeneration. God had the Bible written in this way to trip up the prideful-those who trust in their own works for salvation, but only the humble see their utter helplessness, knowing that they can offer God nothing of themselves for pardon of their sins!

"For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence." 1 Cor 1:26-29

How foolish to think water washes sins away, when the Bible clearly teaches otherwise!

"And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood" Rev 1:5

 

[Chuckt]

You seem to have left out the fact that Wallace, Bruce, Clark, Moule, Block, McCord, and a host of other Greek scholars of Roberson's class adamently disagreed with Robertson' treatment of this passage even though as you point out, Wallace himself did not believe that baptism was essential. I have the utmost respect for Robertson as a Greek scholar but on this point, he is simply wrong. Regardless of one's views on baptism it still does not change what this text says. Try as they might, people have challenged this text for many years but it still says what it says. "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."

The King James still has words in italics 400 years later inserted by the translators that are not there.
There are a lot of denominations aligned with the Catholic Church because I feel they never really came out of Catholicism and I am thinking they had people on the translation committees so therefore their translations are wooden. Other Christians who can read Greek do not translate the passage according to tradition.

The other in testing thing is that I have enough information that baptismal regeneration is wrong so why translate it wrong?

 

[oldhermit]

The King James still has words in italics 400 years later inserted by the translators that are not there.
There are a lot of denominations aligned with the Catholic Church because I feel they never really came out of Catholicism and I am thinking they had people on the translation committees so therefore their translations are wooden. Other Christians who can read Greek do not translate the passage according to tradition.

The other in testing thing is that I have enough information that baptismal regeneration is wrong so why translate it wrong?

The translation is correct. If it were incorrect, then why have no translators taken it upon themselves to correct in all the revisions and new translations that have occurred in the past 100 or so years. They know the translation is correct and they are not willing to damage their credibility as scholars to retranslate that passage in a published translation. As I said earlier, no matter what one's soteriotology may be this, text still says what it says. If you do not like the KJV then here is the ESV, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." I have offered to go through the Greek with you point by point but you seem unwilling to do this. It is obvious we are not going to agree.

 

[garee]

Baptism accomplishes nothing like circumcision accomplished nothing. Snipping off the end of a weiner? Getting wet? Pssshaw! They're both just signs.

Oh wait... circumcision was a commandment, which if not obeyed cut one off from GOD.

Oh wait... water baptism is a commandment:

And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overpower it! I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you release on earth will be released in heaven.” Matthew 16:18-19

Release
G3089 λύω luo (loo'-o) v.
1. to "loosen"

And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized, each one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ into the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Acts 2:38

Forgiveness
G859 ἄφεσις aphesis (af'-es-is) n.
1. freedom

Hi brothers and sisters in Christ.

Amen, the commandment is to not lay again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith towards God.

It’s the faith that comes from God that does work in us who do believe. Carnal in respect to the flesh outwardly does not draw us closer to God even though those kind of law (temporal) were required to preach the gospel and the promised glory that did follow the three day work of Christ’s labor of love.

Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God. Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. Heb 6:1


While I am not trying to change the subject . I would ask what the original foundation in regard to h2o baptism? It’s almost form my experience as if Christians shy from discussing its original intent.

If a person searches for the root of H20 baptism as to its foundation .Then coming to a conclusion as to its purpose in the end becomes clearer.

H20 baptism is simply that which originated from the Old Testament. And a person cannot repent unless God does the first work of us hearing Him, or else what is it a person is repenting from towards.

What purpose did the Holy spirit have in mind when it was first introduced? How would that which was produced in the Old testaments work out today in respect to the Kingdom of Priest (all believers) ?

 

[Chuckt]

The translation is correct. If it were incorrect, then why have no translators taken it upon themselves to correct in all the revisions and new translations that have occurred in the past 100 or so years. They know the translation is correct and they are not willing to damage their credibility as scholars to retranslate that passage in a published translation. As I said earlier, no matter what one's soteriotology may be this, text still says what it says. If you do not like the KJV then here is the ESV, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." I have offered to go through the Greek with you point by point but you seem unwilling to do this. It is obvious we are not going to agree.

All translations are interpretation.
I saw an old Strong's Cyclopedia and there are word clusters with an asterisk. The asterisk means that it is a common word with up to 300 variations.
On top of that, my friend who was a pastor going to school gave me a pdf that basically said the Bible can not be translated correctly and at the time, I treated it harshly but there is some truth to it.

And if you had translation all together, I wouldn't read Revelation in the Phillips translation and then in the AV and get a totally different idea of what it said.

The reason why translators cannot translate the Bible differently today is because they would lose their job.

 

[oldhermit]

All translations are interpretation.
I saw an old Strong's Cyclopedia and there are word clusters with an asterisk. The asterisk means that it is a common word with up to 300 variations.
On top of that, my friend who was a pastor going to school gave me a pdf that basically said the Bible can not be translated correctly and at the time, I treated it harshly but there is some truth to it.

And if you had translation all together, I wouldn't read Revelation in the Phillips translation and then in the AV and get a totally different idea of what it said.

The reason why translators cannot translate the Bible differently today is because they would lose their job.

That is utter nonsense. The fact that all translations have their issues with translation does not suggest that the original language cannot be translated with a high degree of integrity. As with the transference of ideas from any language to another there will always be words that have no translational equivalent which means the idea must be represented in such a way that will supply the original intent. This is not the case with Acts 2:38. The language, and the syntax of this verse are astoundingly compatible with that of the English language. There is no translational issue with this verse. There is only a hatred for what this verse says.

 

[Chuckt]

That is utter nonsense. The fact that all translations have their issues with translation does not suggest that the original language cannot be translated with a high degree of integrity. As with the transference of ideas from any language to another there will always be words that have no translational equivalent which means the idea must be represented in such a way that will supply the original intent. This is not the case with Acts 2:38. The language, and the syntax of this verse are astoundingly compatible with that of the English language. There is no translational issue with this verse. There is only a hatred for what this verse says.

It is what other elder pastors have told me.
On top of that, you have a bunch of churches that never left Catholicism and they sat on translation committees to keep translations from bias but when you have a majority of churches on translation committees that feel that way then it is their own bias they included.

 

[roaringkitten]

Baptismal regeneration is one of many Catholic heresies. There are closet Catholics on this forum who reveal themselves as such when they teach water baptism is obligatory for salvation. Teaching that water baptism saves is no different from someone teaching the eucharist saves, along with the rest of the seven sacraments invented by the RCC. They are all salvation by works!

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." Eph 2:8-9

 

[oldhermit]

It is what other elder pastors have told me.
On top of that, you have a bunch of churches that never left Catholicism and they sat on translation committees to keep translations from bias but when you have a majority of churches on translation committees that feel that way then it is their own bias they included.

This is the last word I will say on the matter because this is going nowhere. This has absolutely nothing to do with what the Catholic Church or anyone else believes or teaches, nor does it have anything to do with bias. This is a simple matter of preserving the grammatical structure of the verse. It is a simple linguistic exorcise. The translation is correct and all the scholars KNOW it is correct. This is why it has not changed. I am not responsible for what this text says or implies. All I can do is strive to maintain the integrity of the text from the original language no matter who this may offend.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

In regards to Acts 2:38, Greek scholar A. T. Robertson said -

<snip>

One reason that this rationalization is fraudulent is because repentance alone never has resulted in forgiveness of sins. Repentance is always coupled with something else (e.g., repent and believe) as it is in Acts 2:38 (repent and be baptized). Repentance just means to have a change of mind.

 

[BrotherJustin]

HeRoseFromTheDead, Do you have 'babes in Christ' in mind while continuing your side-argument in this thread--or are you merely motivated by your own selfish desire? (This is rhetorical.)

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

HeRoseFromTheDead, Do you have 'babes in Christ' in mind while continuing your side-argument in this thread--or are you merely motivated by your own selfish desire? (This is rhetorical.)

The topic addresses the need for water baptism and that is what my comment addressed.

You seem to be motivated by a need to be judgmental.

 

[BrotherJustin]

You're simply twisting the word to suit your own agenda. The text very obviously says to be baptized upon the name of Jesus into remission of sins. The more you persist in this, the more I'm becoming convinced that you are teaching rebellion against the word of GOD.

Your arguments are very weak.

The omission of water baptism in Acts 3:19 is not proof that it is not required because faith comes first, then obedience. The men in Acts 2 had already demonstrated faith (We're guilty. What do we do now?), but those in Acts 3 had not.

The exception to a rule doesn't disprove that rule. Cornelius and his house receiving the spirit before water baptism was obviously the exception to the rule (Acts 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9). IMO GOD did it that way to convince Peter's doubting mind, because at that point Peter could barely stand to be in the same house with gentiles, much less authorize them to be water baptized into the commonwealth of Israel. Furthermore, receiving the holy spirit doesn't really mean anything because anyone can be anointed with the holy spirit. Both Judas and King Saul were anointed with the holy spirit, and the latter was so overcome by the spirit that he stripped naked and prophesied for an entire day. This was an unrepentant man who was trying to kill the anointed king, David.

Ryrie may have a doctorate, but he doesn't know what he's talking about. Eis means into. Because of would be oti (because, that) or dia (through, on account of).

View attachment 148301

The topic addresses the need for water baptism and that is what my comment addressed.

You seem to be motivated by a need to be judgmental.

Alright man. I'm just saying, if I were a babe in Christ asking about baptism because of my upcoming baptism and I saw all this argument on my thread--I'd probably give up and walk away.

Let's look at Matthew 3:11 this is what is confusing me who will baptize you of the Holy Spirit?

“I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. (Matt 3:11)

The One coming after John was Jesus Christ. So, to answer your question, CEF, Jesus Christ baptizes Christians with the Holy Spirit.

 

[Chuckt]

This is the last word I will say on the matter because this is going nowhere. This has absolutely nothing to do with what the Catholic Church or anyone else believes or teaches, nor does it have anything to do with bias. This is a simple matter of preserving the grammatical structure of the verse. It is a simple linguistic exorcise. The translation is correct and all the scholars KNOW it is correct. This is why it has not changed. I am not responsible for what this text says or implies. All I can do is strive to maintain the integrity of the text from the original language no matter who this may offend.

I have respected you in the discussion and I want you to know that I respect you.

 

[garee]

One reason that this rationalization is fraudulent is because repentance alone never has resulted in forgiveness of sins. Repentance is always coupled with something else (e.g., repent and believe) as it is in Acts 2:38 (repent and be baptized). Repentance just means to have a change of mind.

Repentance means another mind (the mind of Christ) gives a person the spiritual understanding not seen .

The repentance doctrine must be understood as God reveals to us the meanings. A person who is dead in their trespasses and sins cannot repent unless God does the first work in their heart.

In most cases from my own experiences men turn it upside down as if the clay formed our understanding because the Potter not seen had none of His own to offer.

It’s what the father of lies, Satan, does best : turn the things of God upside down as if they came after the things of sinful men.

Isaiah 29:16 Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall “the work” say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had “no understanding”?

The work of repentance that God himself works in the individual “us ward” comes from the wages of sin already being met as the Lamb of God slain from the foundation of the world. . It is the hearing of faith (the work of God) that turns us towards Him who has no form so that we can believe Him, and as a result of hearing His voice we can repent.

Without his first work, working in us .........no man could (imposible) repent. They would be speaking into the air after the imagination of their own heart , dead in its trespasses and sin with God.

Our hearts remain desperately wicked and beyond repair. it is thought the water by the word that God can make our hearts soft. We receive a new heart according to the new Spirit that works in the believer. If any man has not the Spirit of Christ that calls us to repentance , they simply do not belong to Christ, as a Christian.

Either Christ does all the work of salvation or he has accomplished nothing. We have His confidence (not of our own selves) if he has begun the good work he will finish it to the very end.

I have surely heard Ephraim bemoaning himself thus; Thou hast chastised me, and I was chastised, as a bullock unaccustomed to the yoke: turn thou me, and I shall be turned; for thou art the LORD my God.Surely after that “I was turned, I repented;” and after that I was instructed, I smote upon my thigh: I was ashamed, yea, even confounded, because I did bear the reproach of my youth Jer 31:18

For no one of their own volition can seek after Him in order that he could give us His understanding unless his perfect law as the living word of God the one source of Christian faith converts our soul by giving us simply one his personal understanding.

What it is (the law of God) What it contains (it is perfect/complete) What it performs (converting the soul) the gospel is shown in respect to all aspects,(stautues, commandments, the proper fear, the judgments

The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes.The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether.More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb.Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward.Who can understand his errors? cleanse thou me from secret faults.Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me: then shall I be upright, and I shall be innocent from the great transgression.Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. Psa 19:7-14

 

[oldhermit]

I have respected you in the discussion and I want you to know that I respect you.

I appreciate the discussion and your professional manor. I am sorry we could come to an agreement.

 

[JesusIsAll]

Baptismal regeneration is one of many Catholic heresies. There are closet Catholics on this forum who reveal themselves as such when they teach water baptism is obligatory for salvation. Teaching that water baptism saves is no different from someone teaching the eucharist saves, along with the rest of the seven sacraments invented by the RCC. They are all salvation by works!

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." Eph 2:8-9

Have noticed this very same thing, for sometime now. The BDF, and some other forums, are not very useful as a vehicle to find or discuss truth, rather most useful as an indication of what the enemy is up to. What you find a common thread in much of what is said, what is actually of perfect symmetry: doctrines of demons.

You can follow some users around, and they can't cease from spreading subtle error and maliciousness, a few just so, parroting error and lies of Catholicism. It makes you wonder about conspiracy people perhaps having a point, who speak of how Jesuits conspire, sneak around like Adventists, spreading their poison, without revealing who they are. I've always found this screaming volumes, of itself. For whatever reason, why do they need to hide what they are? Is this not a painfully obvious device of the devil and angel of light gig? "Candle" under the bushel theology? What's fascinating is getting a reading on the things the devil has his shorts in a bunch over, and they're getting more antsy, all the time.

Some great Reformed theologians of truth are getting volumes of hate mail these days, from other purported Christians, telling them to cease from certain topics. I mean, is that just crazy "duh" or what? Somebody cut their hands off? They can't just change the channel? Much of what goes on here is a thermometer of the state of such apostasy. You will never even be able to raise an intelligent conversation of more complex truths, which, what do you know, must be spiritually discerned. Except for one or two posters, complex threads die very soon or go on for pages, in a wilderness of contentious, and useless, ignorance. People most demonstrate here how they don't understand the Bible. Even the biggest of the great debates, that never end, are over Sunday school, babies' milk, things well settled, long ago, with any mature, authentic Christian.

I would hasten to add, though, that Oldhermit has never displayed a penchant for Catholicism, agree with him, or not, I've never seen that he's not sincere, that he has ever been one to sneak around. He is scholarly, and what he is stating is also true of Acts 2:38, with regard to what it says. It's simply that many of us know that interpretation of any one verse, that pits itself against the likes of a dozen others (and very common sense, I'd hasten to add), necessarily means that contradictory view is error. I, for one, have never seen in Acts 2:38 any doctrine that water baptism washes away sins, in the first place. But there are plenty enough threads here, already, beating the baptism dead horse. It's just the same old, boring bickerfest, on a mobius strip.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Alright man. I'm just saying, if I were a babe in Christ asking about baptism because of my upcoming baptism and I saw all this argument on my thread--I'd probably give up and walk away.

That's not your place to judge. You strike me as being someone who tries to silence a side of the discussion that he doesn't like or agree with by pretending to be a peacemaker. A lot like progressives who try to silence their opposition by appealing to a higher moral cause.