They are using the term in the same sense as in John 3:3, ie, born again, which really means born from above.
"Acts, the Mikveh & the Blood: How the Bible Defines Remission"
- Thread starter FlyingDove
- Start date
-
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.
They are using the term in the same sense as in John 3:3, ie, born again, which really means born from above.
Can you answer these 6 points directly from Scripture?
No Greek gymnastics. No category‑blending. Just the text.
Heb 9:22 remission requires blood - not water. Scripture states plainly: "Without shedding of blood there is no remission". If water remits sins, then explain why God says blood is required. Please answer directly.
Acts 10:43 remission comes by belief, not baptism. Peter's own words: "Whoever believes in Him receives remission of sins". If water remits sins, explain why Peter says belief instead of baptism? Please answer directly.
Acts 10:44–48 the Spirit was given before water. God's Spirit gift (Acts 10:45 & 11:16-17) is salvation's FOREVER (Jn 14:16) SEAL (Eph 1:13-14, 4:30, 2 Cor 1:22, 5:5, 2 Tim 1:14). If water is the instrument of remission, then explain why God gave the Spirit: before baptism, without baptism, apart from baptism? Please answer directly. This is the death blow to baptismal remission.
1 Pet 3:21 Peter removes water as the saving agent. Peter clarifies the symbol: "Not the removal of dirt from the body, but the appeal to God". The saving element is the APPEAL, not the water. Please explain why you reverse Peter's own explanation.
Acts 22:16 remission is tied to calling, not water. The text literally says: "Wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord". Acts consistently ties salvation to: calling (Acts 2:21), believing (Acts 10:43), Never to water. Please explain why you attach remission to the one thing the text does not attach it to.
Water never remitted sin in any covenant stage. Law: water purified the ceremonially unclean - BLOOD covered sin. John's baptism: preparatory, not remissive, Jesus' ministry: forgiveness tied to faith, not ritual, Acts: remission tied to belief, not water.
Blood removes sin. Faith receives remission. Calling on the Lord saves. Your entire response collapses because it merges categories Scripture keeps separate.
I agree that Israel's water baptisms fit their priestly calling & covenant identity. Where I differ is the idea of 2 separate gospels. Acts shows one gospel progressively revealed. Not a kingdom gospel for Jews & a grace gospel for Gentiles.
Peter preached remission through Christ's name to Jews (Acts 2:21–38) & to Gentiles (Acts 10:43). Paul preached the same remission through Christ's blood (Acts 13:38–39). Water never remitted sins in any era, only Christ's blood does (Heb 9:22).
Christ's finished work replaced the purification role of water, not the practice of baptism. Water baptism continues because the risen Jesus commanded it. Not as a purification ritual or a means of remission, but as a discipleship marker & a public identification with His death & resurrection. The real, effective baptism that PURIFIES & unites us to Christ is performed by the risen High Priest through the Holy Spirit baptism (1 Cor 12:13).
So yes, Israel's baptisms fit their priestly story. But Scripture doesn't present 2 different gospels. It presents one gospel unfolding in stages, with remission always tied to Christ’s blood & never to water.
Sure, I can answer any questions from the Text, not necessarily to anyone's liking, and certainly not beginning with your opening allegation that I partake in Greek gymnastics or category blending.
All I've been dealing with is "Just the text." The Greek is the Text of which you speak and I've been giving you the Greek Text and showing English ambiguities which many rely upon for their "interpretations".
The "gymnastics" are being done with the English.
How does the bible define remission of sin?
1 Corinthians 2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
Matthew 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Wonder why people can't just read HIS word and OBEY it and not put their twisted personal opinion in it?
Wonder way I asked you to back up some of this WITH HIS WORD that you have in you OP and you never did?
It's because of people like you there are so many different denominations and twist on HIS word.
How about just share HIS word ONLY and let JESUS do the talking without interruption???
Matthew 4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
How do we get born of WATER?
Acts 2:38 Then 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.
Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
Acts 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
Acts 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
Acts 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
How do we get born of SPIRIT?
Acts 2,
38 Then 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.
39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
Acts 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
Acts 8:17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.
Acts 10:45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
Acts 19:6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
Peter says what happens when we are filled,
Acts 2:33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
JESUS says what happens IF WE ARE NOT BAPTIZED and when we are filled,
Mark 16,
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
End result, Believe, Repent, get baptized in JESUS name to remove our sins and pray for JESUS to fill you with HIS spirit.
NEED ALL 4 TO BE REBORN.
I just let JESUS do the talking, without my personal twist or opinion.
If you want to PROVE HIS WORD WRONG use HIS word ONLY to do so.
FACT, YOU CAN NOT BACK UP YOUR OPINIONS OF WHAT YOU SAY HIS WORD SAYS WITH HIS WORD.
You said you can answer the questions "from the Text," but you didn't answer one of them. Not one. You dodged all 6 & retreated back into Greek‑talk. The very thing I asked you not to do.
The challenge was simple:
No Greek gymnastics. No category blending. Just the text.
So let's try again.
Answer these directly, from Scripture alone, or admit your position cannot survive without leaving the text.
Heb 9:22, remission requires blood, not water. "Without shedding of blood is no remission." Show me the verse where God says water remits sins.
Acts 10:43, Remission is given to the one who believes.
Peter's own words:
"Whoever believes in Him receives remission of sins." If baptism remits sins, why does Peter say belief does? Please answer the text, no Greek gymnastics & no category blending.
Acts 10:44–48, God gave the Holy Spirit before water. The Holy Spirit is > the salvation seal > fell before baptism, without baptism, apart from baptism. If water is the instrument of remission, explain why God gave the salvation‑seal 1st. This verse alone destroys baptismal remission not to mention Acts 2:1-4.
1 Peter 3:21, Peter removes water as the saving agent. Peter literally says the saving element is: NOT the removal of dirt from the body, but the APPEAL to God. Why do you insist the water saves when Peter explicitly says it doesn't?
Acts 22:16,
The operative action is CALLING, not water
The text says:
"Wash away your sins by > calling on the name of the Lord." Acts ties salvation to CALLING (2:21), believing (10:43), never to water. Why attach remission to the one thing the text does not?
Water never remitted sin in any covenant stage. Law: water purified the body, blood removed sin. John’s ministry: preparatory, not remissive. Jesus ministry: forgiveness tied to faith. Acts: remission tied to belief.
You keep merging categories Scripture keeps separate.
Bottom Line
You didn't answer the questions because you can’t answer them from Scripture. Your position collapses if you stay inside the text. Whenever you're ready, answer the 6 Scripture‑only questions with Scripture > not Greek detours, not grammatical smokescreens, not category‑blending. Just the text!
The NT Acts command includes two separate instructions:
1. Repent, meaning make a conscience decision to turn to God.
2. AND be baptized in the name of Jesus for remission of sin. (water baptism)
"Then 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." Acts 2:38
Read at least my first paragraph again. Here it is with a little highlighting so you don't have to go back:
You're asking everyone here to believe that the KJV, NKJV, NASB, ESV, NIV & every major translation committee across centuries all got it wrong. But somehow your personal Greek paraphrase is the lone voice of truth.
That's not "just the text." That's you elevating your private reinterpretation above the combined work of hundreds of scholars who actually translated the languages you're correcting. If your doctrine only survives by declaring every major translation team incompetent, the issue isn't with the translators.
And since you still won't answer the 6 Scripture‑only questions & keep insisting we abandon the shared English text in favor of your self‑certified Greek expertise. I'll take your inability to debate on the same field as everyone else as your surrender. Best wishes, FD
Wouldn't it be great if everyone just read the KJV and not put their twist on it.
Why are you pointing your fingers at "studier" when you TWIST AND CHANGING THE MEANING OF HIS WORD and making HIS word in to saying something it doesn't say at all?
Matthew 7:3-5 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
I ask you have you received the Holy Ghost since you have believed?
Acts 19
King James Version
19 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
Yea, I know I asked you that before, just trying to make you think about yourself and your walk with JESUS.
And you complain to him about not answering YOUR questions, HOW MANY QUESTIONS DID I ASK YOU?? Wouldn't that make you a hypocrite also?
No, I'm asking YOU to realize that there is more to translation than most understand and to realize the extent of ambiguity in language - both Greek and English in this case.
None of those translations necessarily "got it wrong" - they put forth a very simple and basic English translation of the Greek original. I showed how one translator, whom many know to be a Greek scholar, refined the translation by bringing out the potential of the Greek wording conveying a continual sense. I showed you how a well-known (to some of us) translation agrees with him. There are other translations that fall into the "literal" category that also agree with this. There are some to many in theology who disagree. This is the simple fact of the matter and is not remotely my "private reinterpretation."
We never got here, and it's obvious that we won't within a discussion, because the forum mentality is mostly not that of seeking understandings, but in aggressively and disrespectfully arguing about differences. But your and my difference here is really not even about the language, as I've once again pointed you to just above. That's just where we started, and knowing the language and the theology, I knew you were likely to not accept any of the actual realities within the languages, which BTW, I'm pretty certain you know little about.
At the end of all of this, I think the language of John3:16 is likely to be focusing mainly on the category "believer" - IOW, the articular present tense participle is mainly just saying "the [man] who believes has eternal life".
From there the discussion is about believing one time or continually (which word provides for some [Scriptural] gaps, while "continuously" does not) and the discussion will be about the meaning of "eternal" and whether someone can stop "having" eternal life and/or stop being a "believer". And then.....
So, of course you're going to want the wording to be translated a certain way, so you can interpret the ambiguity as you choose and that fits your chosen systematic theology. I on the other hand do not like ambiguity, but the Text is full of it no matter the language, which is why I originally said "it's a big Book" - I have to accept the ambiguity and have been trained to understand it and to see the options legitimately available to us in the Greek language.
All this to say, we're in the end just discussing the different views of various theologies and whether or not a "believer" means 'once a believer always a believer' or not. I don't think John3:16 or John5:24 tell us this on their own. I find it to be empty argument when someone says one or both support their chosen theological system - especially apart from explaining their interpretation of the language issues.
So, you threw a bunch of verses at me that you think support your system. I'll leave you with these two - FWIW, I really don't care what translation we use here:
YLT John 5:24 'Verily, verily, I say to you -- He who is hearing my word, and is believing Him who sent me, hath life age-during, and to judgment he doth not come, but hath passed out of the death to the life.
YLT 1 John 3:14 we -- we have known that we have passed out of the death to the life, because we love the brethren; he who is not loving the brother doth remain in the death.
Now it's "ambiguity," "options in the Greek" & "theology," but you still haven't answered the 6 Scripture‑only questions I put to you. Not one. I asked you to stay inside the text.
So let's try again.
Answer these directly, from Scripture alone, or admit your position cannot survive without leaving the text.
Heb 9:22, Remission requires blood, not water. "Without shedding of blood is no remission." On what basis do you attach water baptism to remission here?
Acts 2:21 Whoever CALLS on the name of the Lord shall be saved. The operative action is CALLING, not water baptism. Why attach remission to something the text does not?
Acts 10:43 Peter says, Whoever believes in Him SHALL receive remission of sins. Why does Peter tie remission to belief & not water baptism? Please answer using the English text we all share—no Greek gymnastics & no category blending.
Acts 10:44–48 God gives the Holy Spirit, the salvation seal—before water. If water is the instrument of remission, why does God give the eternal seal 1st, without water baptism
Jn 6:63 Jesus says it's the SPIRIT that quickens/GIVES LIFE & the ""flesh profits nothing"". Spiritual life "being born again" is produced by Christ's Holy Spirit baptism, not by any physical/fleshly act.
1 Pet 3:21 Peter denies that the saving element is the water (NOT the removal of dirt from the body) & locates it in the "APPEAL to God". Why do you insist the water baptism saves when Peter says it doesn't?
Again, instead of answering these, you retreated back into Greek nuance & "ambiguity," then claimed the text is unclear. While every major translation committee for hundreds of years records the straightforward reading I'm using. You continue to expect everyone to accept your private reconstruction over the plain reading every major translation reflects.
A quick comment to the text you smuggled into the 6 verse challenge.
You said the present participle "can" imply continual action. Sure, in some contexts. But you're ignoring the actual result clause Jesus attaches to it:
""HAS eternal life"" - ""HAS passed from death to life"" - ""SHALL NOT come into judgment""
Those are completed, settled realities. Jesus doesn't say, "has life as long as he keeps believing." You're importing that into the text.
While the six Scripture‑only questions remain unanswered, the debate simply can't move forward. Best wishes, FD.
And He doesn't say has life no matter what, so you're importing your preference into the Text.
John in fact as I showed from 1John says if no love for brother then remains in death.
If we take the believing as simply substantival with no conclusion on the tense being momentary or continual - which as I've covered is arguable - then all it says is 'the believer has eternal life'.
There's no sense in going through more Scriptures when you won't accept the realities of the two we've been dealing with. I fully understand your chosen theology and I understand the language issues.