What does Acts 10 have to do with the remission of sins before baptism?
Be honest wattie, do you understand the meaning of "quote"?
The conversion of the Philippian Jailer in Acts 16.
- Thread starter Beckworth
- 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.
Be honest wattie, do you understand the meaning of "quote"?
Part 1:
Acts 10:43 KJV
To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
Part 2:
Acts 10:44-47 KJV
While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. [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, [47] Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
There you go.
Probably others have already pointed this out like @mailmandan and I am sure you will not be persuaded but those who exegete scripture correctly state that the Greek word “eis” (translated as “for”) to convey that something is the result of something else and not a means to obtain it.
Example:
John the Baptist said in Matthew 3:11, “I baptize you with water for (eis) repentance.” John did not communicate that a person must be baptized to obtain repentance but that their baptism was the expected result of their repentance.
The remissions of sin/forgiveness of sins occurred at the cross this is a fundamental Christian tenet.
The Christian call is to believe it.
Matthew 7:12
"Therefore whatever you desire for people to do to you, so also you should do to them; for this is the Law and the Prophets."
eis/for = so that (future tense)
Acts 2:38
Peter answered them, “All of you must turn to God and change the way you think and act, and each of you must be baptized in the name of Yeshua Christ so that your sins will be forgiven. Then you will receive the Holy Spirit as a gift.
eis/so that = so that (future tense)
The remission of sin/forgiveness of sins occurs at baptism this is a fundamental Christian tenet. Remission of sins solely at some undefined moment of faith is unbiblical, hence the lack of a biblical example.
The Christian call is to obey it.
John 14:15
"If you love me, you will obey my commandments.
I personally do not hold to the amniotic fluid interpretation, but was simply pointing out that some do. Did you even bother to read the rest of post #251?
Parts of Speech Preposition
eis- defintion
NAS Word Usage - Total: 161
- into, unto, to, towards, for, among
link
I will go with what harmonizes with all of scripture. We are saved fully and completely when we are born again spiritually.
As Greek scholar AT Robertson explains: And be baptized every one of you (κα βαπτισθητω εκαστος υμων). Rather, "And let each one of you be baptized." 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.
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.
https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/rwp/acts-2.html
I feel like you have more knowledge of this doctrine because of your experiences on the forums and in real life but what I am I missing here, isn't the remission of sins what occurred at the cross?
Our sins were remitted 2000+ years ago, the point is to believe it, correct?
God remits sin on the basis of Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross (Romans 3:24-25). The teaching of Scripture is that remission only comes by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8-9).
(Got Questions)
Yes, Jesus' sacrifice on the cross is the actual means of the remission of sins (Matthew 26:28; Romans 3:24-25; Ephesians 1:7; Revelation 1:5) and faith in Jesus Christ (implied in repentance) is the instrumental means by which we obtain remission of sins. (Luke 24:47; Acts 3:19; 5:31; 10:43; 15:7-9; 26:18)
Thank you, sincerely, ... I just needed this affirmation.
This is not a small matter so I was a bit baffled.
Why stop at "water"?
Why not argue the meaning of "spirit"?
Are there not multiple meanings of spirit that we can come up with if we try hard enough?
Can we not muddy up the meaning of spirit to mean the "spirit of knowledge and understanding" that was mentioned in Isaiah 11:2-5?
Maybe its the life sustaining spirit mentioned in Ecclesiastes 12:7?
Or maybe its simply the spirits that minister to those being saved in Hebrews 1:14?
If it can be argued that water is not baptism but possibility amniotic fluid, living water or emblem of God then nothing is safe.
The only one that argues that the water in John 3:5 is not baptism is the one who needs that water to not be baptism.
The Faith Alone Regeneration Theology pushers will go to any length to protect their narrative.
Regardless of how silly.
Remember Occam's Razor:
It's very obvious that Spirit in John 3:5 is the Holy Spirit and I'm yet to hear any other conclusion on that, even from false religions (including Campbellism, Catholicism, Mormonism, Oneness Pentecostalism etc..) that teach salvation by water baptism, so to argue the meaning of "Spirit" (which is even capitalized) would be silly and redundant. The only ones that argue the water in John 3:5 absolutely must be water baptism are the ones who need that water to be baptism. H20 regeneration theology pushers will go to any length to protect their narrative in order to accommodate their works based false gospel.Why stop at "water"?
Why not argue the meaning of "spirit"?
Are there not multiple meanings of spirit that we can come up with if we try hard enough?
Can we not muddy up the meaning of spirit to mean the "spirit of knowledge and understanding" that was mentioned in Isaiah 11:2-5?
Maybe its the life sustaining spirit mentioned in Ecclesiastes 12:7?
Or maybe its simply the spirits that minister to those being saved in Hebrews 1:14?
If it can be argued that water is not baptism but possibility amniotic fluid, living water or emblem of God then nothing is safe.
The only one that argues that the water in John 3:5 is not baptism is the one who needs that water to not be baptism.
The Faith Alone Regeneration Theology pushers will go to any length to protect their narrative.
Regardless of how silly.
Remember Occam's Razor:
In John 4:10 - Jesus answered and said to her, "If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, 'Give Me a drink,' you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water." In verse 14, we read - but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life. In John 7:37, we read - On the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, “If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink. 38 He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.” 39 But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified. Also, in 1 Corinthians 12:13, baptized into one body (Spirit baptism) and drink into one Spirit. Notice that Jesus connects this living water (which reaches the heart) with everlasting life. Whoever drinks this water (distinct from plain ordinary H20 in the well) will never thirst. Jesus is clearly not referring to water baptism here. The natural man can only seem to understand natural water (baptism).
In John 15:3, we read - You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you. In Ephesians 5:26, we read - that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word. By the word and not by water baptism. In 1 Peter 1:23, we read - having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever. Notice once again, through the word of God and not through water baptism.
So, as we can see, "water" is used in the Bible as an emblem of the word of God, and in such uses it is associated with cleansing or washing (John 15:3; Ephesians 5:26) and when we are born again, the Holy Spirit begets new life and the new birth is brought to pass through "incorruptible seed, by the word of God, which lives and abides forever" (I Peter 1:23) and the Holy Spirit accomplishes the washing of regeneration. (Titus 3:5) So, after properly harmonizing Scripture with Scripture, we can see that to automatically read "baptism" into John 3:5 simply because it mentions "water" is unwarranted. If Jesus meant to say baptism, then He would have plainly said, unless one is water baptized, he cannot see the kingdom of God, but that is clearly NOT what Jesus said. So, after properly harmonizing Scripture with Scripture, born again does not refer to water baptism, but to spiritual washing or purification of the soul, accomplished by the word of God through the Holy Spirit at the moment of salvation.
There you go???
He asked you to quote from the Bible not surmise.
I also suspect that you do not understand the meaning of quote.
In other words, he is asking you to cite an example from the Bible. Your so called "quote" does not even mention the remission of sins or even if or when they were saved.
You seem to be of the faith only group, if you are simply quote that.
Remember quote not surmise.
Logic: if they had received the Holy Spirit before baptism, they had to have already been converted, which means they had remission of sins.
Whether it's an individual or a group, to have received the Holy Spirit, they are converted already.
See Acts 19 aside from Acts 10
Yes thankfully there are a few left here.
Most preach "get saved and stay saved" by your own effort.
That's not logic, that's surmising.
And you cannot surmise away baptism as the moment of the remission of sins.
Speaking in tongues is not the moment of the remission of sins.
Speaking in tongues does not prove the remission of sins.
Once again I will ask:
Can you quote from the Bible that we are baptized because we have the remission of sins? (Post# 299)
Remember no surmising or human logic.
Just a simple quote, I am sure you can one.
Baptism for the remission of sins, in the verse it is in, has the other meaning of being baptised 'for' already having remission of sins, to harmonize with rest of scripture, where salvation is at the point of belief and the Spirit is received before water baptism.
Note that when a whole group receives the Spirit, it's different to an individual receiving the Spirit.
Logic and H2O~~~So anyone who has gone swimming or has taken a bath.......Do they just need to believe?
Again, do you have a quote that backs this up? Or are you just assuming this? Where is your quote that states "for already having remission of sin"?
You mean to fit your theology.
There are no scriptures that state salvation is at the "point of belief" alone. Hence your need to surmise.