• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.

What about Baptism?

Discussion in 'Christianity and World Religion' started by cougan, Oct 6, 2002.

  1. cougan

    cougan Senior Member

    No Gabriel Ben is not right and  I have proven it over and over again by book chapter and verse. According to the word of God one is not saved until belives, repents, confesses Jesus as Lord and is water baptized for the forgiveness of sin in the name of Jesus. Then one must remain faithful until death. Salvation can not be obtained without any of the above missing according to the word of God. God would provide away for that person to be water baptized in the dessert and even if God looked into this persons heart and seen that they would of been baptized and God allows him to be saved without water in this VERY RARE instances what does that have to do with you? What is hindering you from being water baptized? I would submit the only thing holding you back is accepting the truth  because you would rather belive in the man made doctrine of Faith Alone instead of accepting the word of God.

  2. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson I Like Traffic Lights

    Considering I began studying Greek at the college level at the age of 16, I think I would be considered an "old Greek guy."

    You are saying things without any support. I'd like to see your reference to such things. In the most widely used and supported Greek textbooks, such statements are nowhere to be found.

    I don't have to. You are not making any kind of argument from any means of scholarship. Just saying so doesn't make it so. 

    Within the Greek, there are two expressed conditions, "belief"&nbsp;and "baptism"&nbsp;(known as <I>protasi</I>). And the one statement to indicate the result of the fulfillment of these conditions (known as <I>apodosis</I>). However, the two conditions do not need to have identical relationships in regard to <I>apodosis</I>. One might be a cause and the other an evidence.<B> </B>If this were the case then it would explain the second phrase. This analysis conforms to logical construction as Milliard Erickson says, <I>"It is simply absence of belief, not baptism that is correlated with condemnation. According to the canons of inductive logic, if a phenomenon (salvation) occurs on one occasion but not on another, the one circumstance on which they differ is the case of the phenomenon."</I>

    I await your scholarship to show the contrary - not merely saying so.

    According to Metzger's Greek New Testament, you are in error about the inclusion of Mark 16. Might I suggest some study on textual criticism? Simply because it is in MOST of the copies, doesn't mean it was in the original. With a body of the best scholars in the entire world, they indicate that they are absolutely positive that this section was not found in the original manuscript. There are also two blatant contradictions found between Mark 16 and the other three resurrection accounts, but I shall leave it to you to figure out which two they are.


    BTW, Iraneus lived from 120-205 A.D. This glaring misstating (or not knowing) of fact&nbsp;tells me a lot.&nbsp;

    Hmmm... Was the thief on the cross baptized? Nope - yet Christ said, "Today you will be with me in paradise." This to me is the clearest indication that baptism is not integral for salvation.&nbsp;Is it a matter of obedience? Yes. But a person is saved BEFORE salvation?&nbsp;


    I await your response.
  3. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson I Like Traffic Lights

    Okay - so you say salvation is only found with water baptism. Then you say:

    IN other words, "Salvation can be obtained without water baptism."

    1. Is this a contradiction?

    2. If you truly believe that man cannot be saved without water, where is your Scriptural support that gives certain people a way out and how can I know who is who?

    Does a person who accepts Christ on her death bed minutes before dying not have to be baptized?

    What about the man who accepts Christ only to slip and fall, busing his head open on the baptismal steps, killing him instantly? Is he saved?

    Please, enlighten us!
  4. cougan

    cougan Senior Member

    Scott I am not sure what Greek books you are looking at but I have 2 here that are used to teach Bibical Greek Grammer. One is called New Testament Greek for beginners written by Machen Macmillian. It states on page 116-117 in regards to the use of Aorist Participles. "The aorist participle denotes action prior to the action denoted by the leading verb, wheather the action denoted by the leading verb is past, present or future." The 2nd Book is Called Essentials of New Testament Greek by Ray Summers. It states on page 89 That " The time of action in participles is indicated in the relation of the action of the participle to the action of the main verb. The following indicates that relationship: The Aorist participle indcates action which is antecedent to the action of the main verb. " This is a basic grammer rule Scott. Try looking up in your books under the use of Aorist participles and you should find this basic rule which has no exception. Are you trying to say that both belive and baptized are not equal and tied together in this Greek sentence as the Cordinating Conjuntion "and" indicates? There I have provided my proof my backing now what is your answer to this irrefutable arguement?

    I showed you a great amount of evidence that the latter part of Mark is suppose to be there and that it was'nt a latter addition. I could frankly care less what the Metzger's Greek New Testament says about it consisding the evidence completly shows the oppisite of what their opinon is. Yes I did make a mistake with my memory on Iraneus and I apoligize for that I meant to say 180 - 181. I knew I should of looked it up then going by my memory. Guess what it still doents change the facts. He quoted Mark 16:19 around that time which is way BEFORE Codex Olive and B. This alone proves that it was not a later addition to the word of God. By the way there isnt even 1 contridiction in these verses with the other accounts. Yes there are alleged contridictions but when you get right down to it they are not cotridictions at all. If you would like to discuss them just post them and I will be more than happy to explain the alleged contridictions. Look back at my last post and tell me why there isnt a foot note for that verse I mentioned which isnt found in either Olive or B. Explain to me why there isnt a footnote about Heb 9:15 - Rev. Explain why in B the copiest left the 3rd column blank allowing enough room for the remainder verse to be written in.

    I am getting really tired of answering the lame theif on the cross arguement. While Jesus was on he earth he had the ability to forgive sins. He had not died yet and the theif was still under the Mosaic Law. Jesus forgave him of his sins and they were. Jesus had to die before his new covenant came in to play. There is no way possible for the theif to have been water baptized into Christ when that Message was not proclaimed until the day of Pentacost. The theif on the cross has abosoultly nothing to do with the new covenant systems that we are under.

    Scott you are misunderstanding what I am saying. I did not say that God saves people in rare instances with out water baptism. I said the bible says that one is only saved after they have been water baptized and had their sins washed away. Notice IF God did save someone outside of baptism what would that have to do with you. I am not saying that he does I am saying IF he does. Scott if you go back to the very first post you will see that I belive with out a doubt that you must belive, repent , confess and be baptized to be saved. Baptism is the last step if you will. If you take one of these things away you are not saved. I dont teach that there is magic in water or that it is the water itself that washes away your sins. It is by your faith in the working of God that you know when you are obedient to the faith that when you are being immersed in water into Christ that you are being buried with him having your sins washed away. It is at the point of baptism that the blood of Jesus is applied because of our obedience. Rember Faith obedince blessing.

  5. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson I Like Traffic Lights


    Why do you constantly call it a "irrefutable argument?" That's what people said about the earth being flat. Any argument can be refuted.

    Let's begin with an exegete of the Great Commission: Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." (NASB) Matthew 28:19-20

    Go and make are aorists, while baptizing and teaching are present active participles. Simply put, Jesus told His disciples to first go and make disciples, then baptize and teach them. Jesus' instructions are about discipleship - not about conversion. Baptism is to be found as obedience in discipleship!

    Let's use this context, since the instructions were given at the same time (I'll talk more about the supposed part later).

    You state that for aorist participles, the tense "indcates action which is antecedent to the action of the main verb," yet I add that "The participle, on the other hand, is in itself timeless, and gains whatever suggestion of time-relation it conveys from its relation to the rest of the sentence. It is not affirmed that the Aorist Participle denotes time relative to that of the principal verb, but that its time-relations are not independent, like those of the Indicative, but dependent.

    It is thus apparent that the whole attitude, so to speak, of the participle toward time-relations is different from that of the Indicative, and no formula of equivalence between them can be constructed. A timeless noun or adjective cannot by any fixed rule be translated into a time-expressing verb."

    This is from Burton, Moods and Tenses of NT Greek, perhaps the most in-depth Greek exegetical study in the world. An examination of the aorist participle agagonta in Hebrews 2:10 illustrates this point very well (note how it disagrees in tense with teleosai!)

    Therefore, your claim that the word must be before is bogus and has been refuted. The action of baptism could possibly occur after salvation.

    (From Metzger)

    Four endings of the Gospel according to Mark are current in the manuscripts. (1) The last twelve verses of the commonly received text of Mark are absent from the two oldest Greek manuscripts (Aleph and B), from the Old Latin codex Bobiensis (itk), the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, about one hundred Armenian manuscripts, and the two oldest Georgian manuscripts (written A.D. 897 and A.D. 913). Clement of Alexandria and Origen show no knowledge of the existence of these verses; furthermore Eusebius and Jerome attest that the passage was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to them. The original form of the Eusebian sections (drawn up by Ammonius) makes no provision for numbering sections of the text after 16:8. Not a few manuscripts which contain the passage have scribal notes stating that older Greek copies lack it, and in other witnesses the passage is marked with asterisks or obeli, the conventional signs used by copyists to indicate a spurious addition to a document. Even in some of the ones codii you spoke of, there are textual notes that the oldest manuscripts do not have the passage!!!

    How should the evidence of each of these endings be evaluated? It is obvious that the expanded form of the long ending (4) has no claim to be original. Not only is the external evidence extremely limited, but the expansion contains several nonMarkan words and expressions as well as several that occur nowhere else in the New Testament. The whole expansion has about it an unmistakable apocryphal flavor. It probably is the work of a second or third century scribe who wished to soften the severe condemnation of the Eleven in 16.14.

    If anything - these external and internal consistencies should at least warn the student that these verses are sketchy to say the least. Any doctrine found within should be very carefully screened. That being said, is it not strange how Mark doesn't address baptism at all until Mark 16:16. If it was so pertinent to salvation, then you would think he would be saying it much more!

    That being said - let's examine what Mark DID say about Baptism: "Mark 1:8 I baptize you with[ 1:8 Or in] water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."

    Even if we assume that baptism is necessary for salvation, the burden of proof is on you to show that this baptism is water baptism, and not the Holy Spirit that all men are baptized into upon believing.

    So if I show you one instance of a person being saved before baptism after the new convenatnt, you will agree you are wrong? Here we go:

    Acts 10:

    44While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. 45The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. 46For they heard them speaking in tongues[2] and praising God. 47Then Peter said, "Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have." 48So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.

    They heard the message, believed, were saved, AND THEN were baptized! How can there possibly be any doubt that these people were not saved before baptism. Game. Set. Match.

    Has nothing to do with me. Has everything to do with theology.

    So you admit that it COULD happen? Doesn't that go against your interpretation of Scripture? Either God can save only with baptism or He can save whether or not a person is baptized.

    I await your response.
  6. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson I Like Traffic Lights

    Just a note:

    Christians who were never baptized:

    John Calvin
    Jacob Arminius
    Joseph Molina
    All Christian Catholics
    Thomas Aquinas

    Perhaps even Jonathan Edwards.

    Will you say, Cougan, that all of these are currently in Hell for never being baptized? A yes or no answer will suffice.
  7. seebs

    seebs God Made Me A Skeptic

    Personally, I'd have to say I don't know. (Among other things, for all I know, all of them are in Hell for other reasons, and thus won't help us answer the baptism question.) Although I'm a bit unclear on why you're listing "all Christian Catholics" as not being baptized, unless context includes only full immersion as baptism.

    That said, I doubt any of those people are in Hell; God seems nicer than that.
  8. cougan

    cougan Senior Member

    Scott I am short on time but will make a few quick comments and I will expound later. First off you never really even dealt with my Greek arguement in Mark 16:16. I want to know do you dismis the rules that I quoted out of 2 different Greek grammer Books? Are you willing to say that that a Cord Coj does not make both Belief and baptism equal and tied together? Even when you look at Mark 16:16 in the English it says the same thing. You must BELIEVE AND BE BAPTIZED to be saved. I will definately deal with you Greek grammer in Mat 28:19 later because you really jacked it up. I will also take a look at your Heb 2:10 verse.

    Clement of Alexandria never quoted Philemon or 2Peter so I guess we should throw those Books away along with the long ending of Mark. Eusebius never said that the long ending wasnt suppose to be there. He just said some belive that it belongs and some dont. Jerome included the long version in seveal of his writtings. So these are not proof at at all. Did you deal with my questions on this topic? NO. Greek writtings do not end their books with the word Gar. Can you explain that? Can you explain why the copiest left the 3rd colomn blank in Codex B leaving enough room for verses 9-20? Can you tell me why there is not a footnote for the missing verses not found in Olive or B the proclaimed best manuscripts? Why would it suprise you that Mark 16:16 starts talking about baptism at the end of the book? Just look at the book of Mat when the great commision was given there. Its at the end of the book as well. Why does this cast doubt on your mind in Mark but not in Mat?

    Scott looks like it did'nt take you long to figure out the theif on the cross isnt an arguement at all. I want you to show me Scott where does it say that Cornelius household was saved before baptism? Where does it say that Holy Spirit baptism saves you? Ask yourself this question what was the purpose of Holy Spirit Baptism? It happend at the day of pentacost on the apostles and here on the gentiles in Acts 10. Why did Peter command them to be water baptized as soon as he saw that they had been HS baptized like them on the day of Pentacost?

    I must not be making myself clear to you Scott. When I said If God saved someone outside of water baptism in a rare instance what does that have to do with you. I did not say that it is a possibilty. In fact I said according to the bible one must be water baptized coupled with the other things I mentioned in order to be saved. So when I say If I am just pointing out that even if he made a exception in a rare case that it would have absoultly nothing to do with you and your ability to be water baptized.

    Do you belive that water baptism is a command? If you agree that it is then if someone who does not get water baptized is willfully going against the word of God is he not? It would be a sin not to be water baptized and would be a sin of ommission. James 4:13 Futher more it is only those that do the will of the Father that enter into heaven. Mat 7:21 James 1:22 Water Baptism is the point your sins are washed away. Acts 2:38 22:16. It is when you are added to the body/church 1Cor 12:13. So are these people you refered to lost because they were not water baptized the answer is Yes, but not by my words but by the word of God.

    Seebs it is pointless to water Baptize a Baby as it can not belive, repent, or confess Jesus as Lord. Nor does a baby have sin as it does not know right from wrong. Baby baptism are not authorized in the word of God.
  9. Ben johnson

    Ben johnson Legend Supporter

    Name a single text that presents "saved" in the infinitive: TO BE SAVED? I am familiar only with the factual treatment:

    "He who believes and is baptized is saved". To discuss "unsalvation" we are constrained to only discuss what the Word SAYS about "unsalvation"---and it says, "only unbelief condemns".

    If waterbaptism is CONSEQUENCE of salvation, just as Jesus (Matt7) and James (2) and John (1:3:4-10) and EVERYONE ELSE said "works/fruits follow true saved-faith", then Mark 16:16 harmonizes perfectly with, "ONLY BELIEF causes salvation"
  10. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson I Like Traffic Lights


    Of course, beginning Greek&nbsp;grammars would not have all of the exceptions to the rule.&nbsp;That would be a lot of stuff to cover! The quote I posted is from a very advanced source!

    Oh, and&nbsp;kai doesn't&nbsp;always mean&nbsp;a simple "and" either.!&nbsp;

    And yet to "not be saved" you merely have to 'not believe."

    It's fairly simple. They are to make disciples BEFORE baptizing.&nbsp;

    Please do.

    That may be true if this was the only reason that was shown.

    I provided a source. Can you?


    You'll still have to do better. Some kind of authority on the subject here.

    Absolutely! This right here shows me that you've been listening to KJV only propoganda, because this is seen over and over again. Did you know that there is blank space at the end of each of each of these books!




    1 Peter

    1 John&nbsp;





    Are you surprised by this? If you are, I suggest you expand your reading! (Burgon, Schrivener, and Abbot) [/quote]

    For one thing, the internal evidence doesn't agree either. There are 17 different words or phrases found in the last verses that aren't in the main text. 17! Does that strike you as odd? Words such as <SPAN class=c16 lang=EL>poreuvomai</SPAN>us which appear three times in the last 11 verses that are not in the other 15 and a half chapters. Internal consistency shows that this last part was not written by Mark.

    The critical errors of the last 200 years who have outright rejected the text are, among others, Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort (though retained by all in the text with or without brackets), and by such critics and Commentators as Fritzsche, Credner, Reuss, Wieseler, Holtzmann, Keim, Scholten, Klostermann, Ewald, Meyer, Weiss, Norton, Davidson.

    &nbsp;Matthew mentions baptism 10 times. Again, baptism is important, but not needed for salvation. Do you find it strange that three of the four books say NOTHING about baptism being needed for salvation? The only part of the gospels is found in a highly questionable section of Mark! Does that mean nothing to you?

    I don't agree with you, but there were more important things to discuss. If Christ could save someone on earth before his death, I do not see how it would be different after his resurrection - he has the power to forgive sins both before and after - but it can be dealt with on a different post.

    Matthew 3:11, primarily.

    Romans 15:16 says that the Holy Spirit is who sanctifies us. Ephesians 1:13 says that the Holy Spirit is our seal of salvation. Even in this context, the HOly Spirit is viewed as a gift?

    Are you saying that it is possible to recieve the Holy Spirit and STILL not be saved because of not being baptised? You have SO many holes in your argument I just wish you could see!

    The Holy Spirit sanctifies us and is the seal of salvation.&nbsp;

    If there is an exception AT ALL, then God is a liar, since he said, "One must believe and be baptized to be saved." Therefore, there can be no exception. That you even entertain the possibility is intriguing, indeed.

    Yes. So is someone who looks at a woman lustfully.

    Yes. So is someone who looks at a woman lustfully.

    Someone who looks at a woman lustfully would also be a sin.

    So if a person looks at a woman lustfully, they cannot enter heaven, right?

    Nothing to do with baptism. NOt even anywhere near the context.

    Nothing to do with baptism. This doesn't help your case at all.

    I will be the first to admit<B> Acts 2:38</B> in any translation does seem to teach that baptism does bring about forgiveness of sins, and thus salvation. The issue though is one of Greek grammar and word meaning, namely how the Greek words for repentance and baptism relate to the phrase <I>"for forgiveness/remission of sins"</I>, and what the meaning of the preposition <B>"for"</B> (<I>eis</I>) is within the verse.

    A view given by several New Testament Greek grammarians is that <B>Acts 2:38</B> does not teach that baptism brings forgiveness, because the Greek word <I>eis</I> should be translated <I>"because of"</I> rather than <I>"for the purpose of."</I> J.R. Mantey argued that eis could be used to express cause in various places in the New Testament, among them <B>Matthew 3:11</B> and <B>Acts 2:38</B>. Mantey believes, as do many others, that salvation by grace would be violated if a casual eis was not true in <B>Acts 2:38</B>.

    Premier Greek grammarian A.T. Robertson also argued that <I>eis</I> in <B>Acts 2:38</B> should be understood as <I>"because of"</I>, similar to its reasonable usage in <B>Matthew 12:41</B>, <B>"They repented because of</B> [<I>eis</I>] <B>the preaching of Jonah."</B>Kenneth Wuest contended the same, but mentioned a comment by Josephus that John baptized people only after they repented in Antiquities of the Jews, book 18, chapter 5, section 2.

    Holding to a view that baptism brings forgiveness of sins flies in the face of Lucan theology (<B>Luke 13:3; 24:47; Acts 3:19; 5:28-32; 11:18; 17:30; 20:21; 26:20</B>).

    One alternative is to re-punctuate the passage to read, <I>"Repent, and let each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins"</I> or <I>"Repent for the remission of sins, and let each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ."</I> If this were the correct understanding, the <I>eis</I> is subordinate to <B>"repent"</B> alone and not to <B>"be baptized."</B> Though this would be different from the word order in the Greek, the Greek language does not depend nearly as much on the order of words as English does in order to make sense.

    What favours this interpretation is that <B>"repent"</B> here is a second person plural verb, which would be in proper accord with <B>"remission of your sins"</B>, while <B>"let each...be baptized"</B> is a third person singular verb.

    Repentance and faith are opposite sides of the coin of conversion and are the internal workings of the Holy Spirit in the heart of the person who comes to God. In my opinion <B>Acts 2:38</B> teaches: believe on the Lord Jesus and repent for the forgiveness of sins, then seal that confession of the heart with the outward confession of baptism.

    The incident at Cornelius' house poses problems for those believing baptism brings salvation. <B>Acts 10:44</B> reveals that upon hearing the gospel preached by Peter, the house of Cornelius received the Holy Spirit (cf. <B>Matthew 3:11; Acts 2:39</B>). Reception of the Spirit showed Peter and his companions that God had already worked inwardly in the house of Cornelius. Demonstrating the legitimacy of baptism for these newly regenerated believers, when Peter recounted the event to the apostles and elders in Jerusalem, the issue was faith, he did not even mention water baptism (<B>Acts 11:15-18</B>).

    In <B>Acts 16:30-31</B>, when the Philippian jailer asked Paul what he must do to be saved, Paul told him to believe in Christ and he would be saved. Only later after the jailer had washed Paul and Silas's wounds did Paul baptize him.

    Acts 22:16 has two separate clauses, each with an imperative verb and its modifying participle. The Greek is difficult to express in fluid English, but a very literal rendering of the verse would be, <I>"Rise, have yourself baptized, and allow your sins to be washed away by calling on the name of the Lord."</I> Calling on the name of the Lord would be a confession of Christ like those found in <B>Joel 2:32, Acts 2:21</B>, or <B>Romans 10:13</B>. The baptismal act would be a visual sign that one is calling on the name of the Lord and becoming a Christian.

    We were baptized by the SPIRIT! Not by water!

    The words of God deny what it is that you say. You're creating an entire doctrine on 4 flimsy verses.
  11. cougan

    cougan Senior Member

    I am still investiagating your supposed exception to this rule. I think you would agree that if indeed there are a few instances where this Greek rule does not apply there has to be a reason for it. I want you to explain to me what in this verse in Mark 16:16 justifies an exception to the Greek rule of Aorist Participles must take place before the main verb?

    By the way I know that the word kai does'nt always simply mean "and" but in this verse it does and regardless of that point you cant deny that this cord conj causes both "belive" and "baptized" to be equal with one another and tied to one another.

    Belief is the first step in salvation. If you dont belive you are never going to do the other things that save you. If you dont belive you would not be interested in what the rest of Gods word says. To "not belive" is not the ONLY thing that will keep you from being saved. Notice in this next verse how these people belived but would not confess him Would they be saved?
    KJV John 12:42 Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue:

    If you do not obey the word of God you will not be saved.
    KJV 2 Thessalonians 1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:

    Luke tells us that if we do not repent we will perish. KJV Luke 13:5 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

    So do not try and portray the scriptures as teaching that ONLY lack of belife condemns someone.

    19 Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit:
    20 teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.

    The wore "Go" is an aorist participle. Which the action of this occurs before the main verb "make disciples". This is easily apparent as the disciples must first "go" before disciples can be made. "Go" however is not grammatically a part of makeing disciples. Notice there is no noun. The noun is found in the main verb itself. Thus "you" (2 person, plural) "make disciples". "Make disciples" is in the imperative mood. The imperative mood is used in commands (Machen p 180.) The force of Christs words are taht of a command to make disciples. "Make disciples" is the main verb because it is that which Jesus wants them (and us) to accomplish.

    The fact that "make disciples" is aorist tells us that the action of making disciples has not started at the time of Christs command. Summers says that the aorist imperative has to do with the action which has not yet started" (p112). Therefore, literally Jesus is saying "Go, start making disciples."

    Now lets examine how the were to make disciples. We we now look at the 2 participles baptizing and teaching. First we must observe that these are present participles which indicate action taking place at the same time as the main verb. Here a few quotes on this point.

    The present participle, therefore, is used if the action denoted by the participle is represented as taking place at the same time as the action denoted by the leading verb, no matter wheather the action denoted by teh leading verb is past, present, or future (Machen, P 106)

    The time of action in participles is indicated in the relation of the action of the participle to the action of the main verb... The present participle indicates action which is conntemporaneous (at the same time) with the action of the main verb (Summers p 89-90)

    What we have, then, is the participles (necessary to the completion of the action of the main verb) occurring at the same time as that of the main verb. Disciples are made while the apostles (and other Christians) are baptizing and teaching. Does this mean that Jesus is saying that a person is a "disciple" before baptism? NO. I might say "Go make a house, hammering and sawing." Hammering and sawing occur at the same time the house is being made. But the house is not a completed house until the hammering and sawing have been completed. In the same way "baptizing them" and "teaching them" occur at the same time as "make disciples" But a person is not a disciple until both "baptizing" and "teaching them" are completed. As Hanna well notes, Baptizing and teaching are modal participles describing the manner in which disciples are made. (p58)

    and so it is incorrect to say (as many do) that first diciples are made, then they are baptized, and finally are taught to observe the commandments of Christ. It is also improper (based on this passage alone) to say "Teach them, baptize them, and then teach them some more!." So we must Go and make diciples, HOW by baptizing and teaching them. This occurs at the same time as making disciples. This simply means that "making disciples" consist of a process of "baptizing" and "teaching" which are commands.

    Further more the baptizing here is talking about water baptism and not HS baptism because this baptism was to be adminstered by man. As Philp did to the Enuch in Acts 8. Not to mention HS baptism can not be done by a man. Here baptism is commanded and HS baptism was a promise and never a command. So the great commision as it is called is to be done until the end of time and when we are taught and are baptized in the name of the father, son, HS we are made disciples and we can not enter into that realationship as being a disciple until we are both taught and baptized. You will obseve when some one is baptized in the name of Jesus that the are being baptized in water by his authorty and even more than than that "in the name of" signifies to come into the “possession” of another (Arndt & Gingrich, p. 575). Hence, at the point of baptism, one enters a special relationship with the divine Godhead. One does not enjoy this relationship before baptism, as many denominationalists allege.

    I will stop here for now Scott. I will post more latter in regards to your post.

  12. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson I Like Traffic Lights


    1. Allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture, primarily. Since baptism is not necessary for salvation in the rest of the Scriptures, it would not be necessary here.

  13. cougan

    cougan Senior Member

    An examination of Acts 2:38.

    First lets begin by leading up to acts 2:38. Peter began to proclaim the word of God on the day of Pentecost. He starts out talking about Joel's prophecy and in particular I want to look at this verse 21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. This obviously is not mearly "calling" on the name of the Lord as pointed out by Jesus himself in Matthew 7:21 " Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. So clearly "calling" on Christ involves more than a mere verbal plea. Now watch this. The same apostle that told these people they would be saved by calling on the name of the Lord goes on to say Acts 2:38 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Since the shall be saved of 2:21 is equivalent to the forgiveness of sins in 2:38 it necessarily follows that calling on the name of the lord includes both repentance and baptism. This is further pointed out&nbsp; in Acts 22:16 'And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.&nbsp; I will make more comment on this verse later.

    Now lets take a look at the grammar of acts 2:38. First off it should be obvious that the people Peter just spoke to and pricked their hearts were believers at that point because they wanted to know what they should do. It should also be obvious that they were not saved at this point. The first thing they are told to do is repent. This word repent has the cord conj "and" tying it together with the command be baptized every one of you. Both repentance and baptism are said to be for the remission of sins. It seems that the problem you have lies upon on the word "for" or "eis" in Greek. The meaning of the word "for" here "to obtain" Noted lexicographer J.H. Thayer rendered the phrase in acts 2:38 "to obtain the forgiveness of sins" (94) Arndt-Gingrich translated the expression "so that sins might be forgiven"

    A.T. Robertson, a Baptist who had no difficulty in ascertaining that eis signified "purpose" in Mat 26:28 noted that the matter is one of "endless controversy," and so he sought to find a view consistent with his Baptist theology. He suggested that "because of" could be a meaning for eis. However the great scholar revealed more than he intended when he, in his massive Historical Grammar, asserted (regarding eis in 2:38), that sometimes grammar must give way to theology (389)

    &nbsp;It is interesting to notice a parallel passage in Matt. 26:28: "For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."&nbsp; The phrase "for the remission of sins" is the same in English and Greek in both Matt. 26:28 and Acts 2:38.&nbsp; If it means in Acts "be baptized because your sins are already forgiven" then Christ was saying in Matthew that his blood was shed because their sins were already forgiven.&nbsp; One is as absurd as the other.

    The term eis is employed some 1,773 times in the New Testament(Smith 109) and NEVER is translated "because of." Furthermore, it is obvious that "repent" and "be baptized" have the same goal, inasmuch as these verbs are joined by the cord conj "and". Therefore, "because of" could not possibly be the meaning of eis in this passage. Should we argue that one repents "because of" forgiveness already received?

    Now to be completely&nbsp; through I want to provide you with a list of scholars and their denomination and how the rendered eis in acts 2:38.

    For the putting away / Abbot Church of England Commentary on acts
    For, to or toward / Alexander Presbyterian Commentary on acts
    Unto, for, in order to / Axtell Baptist Shepard's Handbook
    For, unto / Benson Methodist Commentary on bible
    For, unto / Bickersteth Church of England Commentary on acts
    End toward which / Butcher Presbyterian Shepard's Handbook
    In reference to / Adam Clarke Methodist commentary on bible
    Unto, to / Dill Baptist Shepard's HandBook
    Is always prospective / Ditzler Methodist wilkes ditzler debate
    Aim, purpose /&nbsp; Godet Presbyterian Shepard's Handbook
    Purpose / Goodwin Congregationalist Shepard's Handbook
    In order to / Harkness Baptist&nbsp; Shepard's Handbook
    The object to be obtained / Harmon Methodist Shepard's Handbook
    Unto, in order to receive / Harper Baptist Shepard's Handbook
    Unto / Hovey Baptist Commentary on John
    Unto, to this end / Jacobus Presbyterian Commentary on acts
    Denotes object / Meyer Lutheran Commentary on acts
    With a view to / McLintock Methodist McLinTock &amp; Strong Encyclopedia
    In order to&nbsp; / Willmarth Baptist&nbsp; Baptist Quarterly, 1878

    I could add more but this&nbsp; should be more than&nbsp; enough to back up what I am proclaiming. Scott I would love to see you try&nbsp; and squirm your way&nbsp; around this post and my last post. If you want me to I could bring up several writers from the early 2nd century that proclaimed water baptism being for the remission of sins. Like Barnabas 130 AD or Hermas Shepheard , Justin, Theophilus, Irenaeus, or perhaps Tertullian.

    Perhaps Scott you should stop holding on to your strategically placed rare supposed Greek exceptions only when it goes against your view and just accept the simple truth that water baptism&nbsp; is a part of salvation. I find it strange that we have to take this argument to this&nbsp; level when you can see clearly that baptism is a part of salvation just by reading it in the English.
  14. cougan

    cougan Senior Member

    Here is an article to go along with my post to point out the truth even more.


    "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).

    This is without a doubt one of the most misunderstood passages of Scripture in the New Testament. No other passage has been so ignored or falsely interpreted as this now before us. It is here that many great scholars have abandoned all scholarship and have allowed their own denominational prejudices to taint their reasoning powers. It is here that men have sought to explain away simple truth in order that God's Word might conform to their own erroneous views. It is here that many would have God to follow man rather than man to follow God in answer to the question, "... what must I do to be saved?" (Acts 16:30). It would be good if, whenever we approach a study of God's Word, we keep the following truth in mind, "... yea, let God be true, but every man a liar ..." (Rom. 3:4).

    Upon a casual examination of the verse before us it must be admitted that the cause for confusion is not readily apparent. The question before the serious student is, "Why or for what reason shall one be baptized. It would seem most appropriate to examine the passage under consideration and allow the Scriptures to speak for themselves.

    The majority of the major translations of Scripture translate the Greek phrase [@eis] [@afesin] [@ton] [@hamartion] found in Acts 2:38 as "for the remission of sins" or "for the forgiveness of your sins." The appropriate question must be, "Why be baptized, Peter?" Listen to Peter's response, " ... be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins ... "(Acts 2:38). What for, Peter? For the remission of sins! Why, Peter? For the forgiveness of your sins! Peter, how does one obtain remission/forgiveness of sins? "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins..." (Acts 2:38). Unto what is one baptized, Peter? The American Standard Version (1901) translates the same passage in the following manner, "And Peter said unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; ... (Acts 2:38). The New American Standard Bible translates Peter's response, "And Peter said to them, Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; ..." (Acts 2:38). This simplistic approach is not given sarcastically, rather, it is offered to demonstrate the simplicity of the Scriptures to the spiritually minded individual.

    If the passage is so simple, then wherein lies the confusion? It is not with God, for "God is not the author of confusion..." (1 Cor. 14:33). This leaves but one alternative: the confusion must be a product of the mind of man! There is not adequate space to reply! to every denial that is offered to what Peter stated so simply. Therefore; the remainder of this study will concentrate on the meaning of the Greek preposition [@eis] and its English translation. May it properly be translated "because of" or is this merely another attempt by man to put forth his own dogma over the will of God?

    A. T. Robertson, Professor of Interpretation of the Greek New Testament at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary for nearly half a century, was one of the most brilliant and popular scholars of his day. Yet he, like many others, dismissed scholarship and truth in favor of denominational doctrine. Mr. Robertson's comments concerning the Greek phrase [@eis] [@afesin] [@ton] [@hamartion] [@humon] in Acts 2:38 are exemplary of the false teaching propagated by so many today. In an attempt to render the Greek preposition [@eis] as "because of" he himself admits that in order for one so to translate the preposition, there would have to be in the translator's mind a predetermined idea as to the essentiality of baptism for the remission of sins. On this particular point Brother Thomas B. Warren observed:

    "Dr. Robertson is a great scholar," but note this. Dr. Robertson was hurting -- he wanted to get Acts 2:38 on the side of the Baptists but his scholarship would not let him go quite all the way. I just want to show you what he says: "This Phrase is the subject of endless controversy as men look at it from the standpoint of sacramental or evangelical theology. In themselves the words can express `aim' or `purpose' for that use of [@eis] does exist." Now get this: "One will decide the use here according as he believes baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not." Do you now see what he had to do? He said you have to decide first whether you want it to be for the remission of sins or not, and then you get the meaning of the preposition. That shows the strain that Dr. Robertson was under to try to sustain that proposition.<10>

    Although a member of the Baptist church, Dr. Robertson's comments echo the sentiment of a great part of the religious world who subscribe to a faith in Jesus Christ and would call themselves "Christians." Are they correct in their understanding? Are those who contend for the necessity of baptism "for" the remission of sins trying to bind where God has not bound? What is the truth of this most important matter? Let us weigh the evidence available to us,

    One of "the standards" in the field of Greek Lexicography is Joseph Henry Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon. It is a work which is repeatedly referred to by a great majority of students of the Scriptures to support their conclusions in understanding and translating the Greek New Testament. Mr. Thayer has this to say concerning the Greek phrase [@eis] [@afesin] [@ton] [@hamartion], "to obtain the forgiveness of sins, Acts 2:38;."<11> Do you feel the full impact of this statement? It is not in reference to just "some" Greek phrase, but rather to the exact phrase, in the exact verse under consideration. And what does Dr. Thayer say that it means? He says that it means "to obtain the forgiveness of sins."

    In an equally scholarly and classic work, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, the author and revisers, Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich, supply this meaning to the Greek preposition [@eis], in reference to its usage in Acts 2:38: "[@eis] [@afesin] [@ton] [@hamartion], for forgiveness of sins, so that sins might be forgiven ..."<12> The voice of the two most respected and renowned lexicons gives weight to the conclusion that baptism is "for" or "unto" the remission of sins and not "because of" the remission of those sins.

    It would not do to mask the fact, neither to ignore it, that the greatest perpetrators of this false teaching (albeit in sincerity) are those who would subscribe to the doctrine of salvation by "faith only." Many times those of the Baptist persuasion have been met by New Testament Christians, in defense of the gospel, on this very issue. Let the evidence of their scholars be heard. Brother Thomas B. Warren in his debate with L. S. Ballard brought to the attention of his audience, and hence to us, the scholarship of many men including many Baptist scholars. J. W. Wilmarth, a great Baptist scholar, wrote:

    "The truth will never suffer by giving to [@eis] its true significance. When the Campbellites translate "in order to" in Acts 2:38, they translate correctly. Is a translation false because the Campbellites endorse it? We conclude without hesitation in accordance with such authorities as Hackett, Winer, Meyer, that the proper rendering of [@eis] [@afesin] [@ton] [@hamartion] in Acts 2:38, as in Matt. 26:28, is "unto," "for," that is, "in order to." "In order to declare" or "symbolize" would be a monstrous translation of [@eis]. If it ever means "with reference to" in the sense of a retrospective and commemorative reference to a past event, we have failed to find an example."<13>

    Quoting again from Brother Warren in his debate with L. S. Ballard:

    "Hackett, another Baptist scholar, "This clause states a result of baptism in language derived from the nature of that act. It answers to `for the remission of sins,' as in Acts 2:38; that is, submit to the rite in order to be forgiven." Now, my friends, you cannot laugh that off. The scholarship of those men would not allow them to fly into the face of that which is true about the preposition [@eis] ... Carl H. Morgan, Dean, Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary, "I do not know of any Greek Lexicon which gives to [@eis] the meaning of `because of.'"<14>

    With all of the above evidence stated, let us now look at what many might call a simplistic approach, even as that stated previously. The American Standard Version of 1901 in Acts 2:38 uses the phrase, "...unto the remission of your sins ..." If one could discover the meaning of the word "unto" perhaps all of the ambiguity might be cleared up.

    "The American Standard Version puts this verse out of all controversy when it translates the expression, "... unto the remission of your sins." According to Webster's International Dictionary, unabridged, the Second Edition, page 2795, the word "unto" means, "... indicating the direction of movement reaching its object or of approach, inclination or tendency in respect of any unreached object." Thus the word "unto" has to do with an "unreached object." The Pentecostians had not yet reached remission of sins! Therefore, when they asked what to do, they were told to repent and be baptized unto the remission of sins! They were to do this in order to reach a blessing which they had not as yet reached -- the remission of their sins! Further it should be noted that the word "unto" means, "... indicated aim, purpose, or destiny, indicating result or attainment or consequent condition." Lost men are to be baptized for the purpose of reaching or obtaining remission of sins! No one is to be baptized because he has already been saved! The Bible where teaches such. The Bible makes clear that lost men are to be baptized in order to reach remission of sins or to come into the state of being saved, or of having their sins remitted."<15>
  15. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson I Like Traffic Lights


    There's a great difference between "calling on the name of the Lord," and merely saying, "Lord, Lord." They are not the same thing.

    See above. The tenses are different for a reason.

    A. T. Robertson states that not only does eis signify "aim or purpose" (in order to) as in 1 Corinthians 2:7, it can just as well mean "on the basis or ground of (with reference to), Matthew 10:41; 12:41.

    See immediately above. He references two Scriptures. Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament says that eis is a versatile word which primarily "denotes entrance into, or direction and limit: into, to, toward, for, among," (p. 183).

    In other words the symbol of baptism could either be pointing towards the cleansing and forgiveness (with reference to), or could pointing to the actual procuring of forgiveness (in order to).

    I can show you an example of where it IS translated as "because of." An example of this can be found in Luke 11:32, where the text says that the people of Nineveh "repented at the preaching of Jonah." The word at is a translation of the same Greek term eis found in Acts 2:38. The people of Jonah's day, you see, did not repent for his preaching but because of it. Therefore your argument effectually fails.

    But how do they deal with the tense shift of baptism and repenting?

    It is not squirming. You will see that I've answered you completely, showing you where you were absolutely wrong!

    Again, four questionable verses on your side - entire books of the Bible on my side. Hmmm...

    I'd like to ask this question again: Are the people I mentioned a page earlier who were never baptized saved or not? Are entire denominations who do not water baptize saved or not? It's a very interesting question, and I'd love to see you answer it.
  16. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson I Like Traffic Lights

    ***And here's an article for you. Note the problems that your reading of Acts 2:38 causes. Does that mean that if a person drinks the covenant of the wine in the Lord's supper, he or she has his sins remitted? ***

    The question, "What does Peter mean in Acts 2:38 by ‘be baptized. . . for the remission of sins’?", has provoked several different answers in Church history. Groups such as the Church of Christ, the Church of Jesus Christ: Latter Day Saints, and the United Pentecostal Church, interpret Peter to be saying to his hearers that they could obtain remission of sins by the means of baptism. If Peter’s hearers remained un-baptized, then they remained unforgiven by God as well. This way of interpreting Peter’s statement has led these groups to promulgate a doctrine of salvation that is more sacerdotal/sacramental than it is Reformational/Evangelical. The current form of this interpretation holds that since remission of sins is by baptism, then one cannot be forgiven without baptism. Thus, Baptism is the instrumental cause of our remission of sins.

    First, it is important to clear up the use of the terms, "remission" and "forgiveness." An old argument has been used to attempt to solve the problem of Acts 15:9 and Acts 2:38. It proposes that one is forgiven at the point of faith, but one’s sins are not remitted until baptism. The error in this teaching is that, while the English translations give us two words, the original language – Greek – uses only one. Both remission and forgiveness are the English translation of the single Greek noun aphesis or verb aphiemi. Thus, both forgiveness and remission mean the same thing. The root meaning of these words is to "send away or dismiss." In the New Testament this word takes a deeper theological meaning. Vine says that this word:

    [F]irstly signifies the remission of the punishment due to sinful conduct, . . . secondly, it involves the complete removal of the cause of offense; such remission is based upon the vicarious and propitiatory sacrifice of Christ.. In the O.T. atoning sacrifice and forgiveness are often associated. [W. E. Vine, Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Revell, 1966, pp. 122,123]

    A number of current proponents of the UPCI teaching have dropped this argument because they have been exposed to enough education in the Greek New Testament that they now know this argument is misinformed. At the same time, several important exegetical and theological implications of their interpretation of Acts 2:38 remain to be challenged. Without looking at all the exegetical and theological problems we will look at two. First is the exegetical, and second is the theological.

    First, is the exegetical problem of harmonizing Acts 2:38 with other statements in the New Testament, such as, the statements of Jesus in Matthew 26:28 and with Acts 13:38-39 and Acts 15:9. In Matthew’s account of the last supper, Jesus took the cup and offered it to his disciples saying:

    Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness {aphesin} of sins.

    Logically, if Jesus meant that drinking the cup was the equivalent of drinking his blood and receiving forgiveness, then the Roman Catholic Mass is correct. It means that there is literal forgiveness or remission of sins in the very act of taking the Lord’s Supper. This same literalistic approach is used in the UPCI interpretation of Acts 2:38. Students of Oneness Pentecostal history within the UPCI readily admit that their hermeneutic (principal of interpretation) of Scripture is a "back to the Bible literalism". Therefore, if Peter says that Baptism is "for the remission of sin" then that is exactly what it means. Any other interpretation is considered spurious, equivocation, and an affront to the text.

    Among Restorationist movements, exclusive Bible literalism like this is common. It is held up as a spiritual banner and championed as cutting through all the traditions since the Apostolic Church. All this is defended while these many movements, who fight for this literalism, are deeply divided by their own particular literalism. There have been just as many, and more denominations, movements and "fellowships" created as a result of Bible literalism and so-called "common sense reasoning," than have resulted from all the theological differences created by the Reformation churches.

    Let me be clear: I believe in the verbal inspiration and the inerrancy of Scripture. The words of the Bible are of utmost importance. It is because of verbal inspiration that Scripture must be carefully and skillfully interpreted. It calls for more than a shallow or wooden literal interpretation of the words which may totally contradict the actual meaning of the original author. What all Bible believers should strive for is to know what the Bible means by what it says. The problem is that some modern interpreters of the Bible assume that the Biblical author's use of language is the equivalent of their idiomatic use of language. Many times it is not. Thus, current interpreters "read" their definitions of words into the words of the Biblical writers. This is a serious problem which can be fatal.

    Another important concern is that literalism speaks of a lack of a true biblical center from which to interpret Scripture. The Reformation was founded on the formal principle that the Scripture interprets itself. But, this meant more than taking the word literally. Martin Luther advocated that a literal sense of Scripture was not possible without a theological center. For him, that theological center was Jesus Christ. It was the Person and Work of Jesus in justifying the sinner which became the interpreting principle for all of Luther’s study of Scripture. I believe that a misguided and inconsistent literalism will result from any theology that fails to place Christ’s justifying work at the center of Biblical interpretation.

    We can see the result of this inconsistency in the text we are studying. This literalism is not applied equally to all the texts of the Bible. There are portions of Scripture where these groups refuse to use the literal approach that they champion. Instead, they attempt to "theologize" the text, because the literal approach does not harmonize with their particular traditional interpretations. A perfect example of this is found in John 6:53-56 "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life . . ." A consistent, back to the Bible literalist, would agree with Rome. That is, if the text says that the cup is Jesus’ blood, then it has to be his blood. We can have eternal life by drinking Christ’s blood. "That’s what it says, and that’s what it means," the literalist would say. The dilemma in taking a literalistic approach is that it finds itself missing Jesus’ meaning and alternatively, perfectly harmonizing with Roman sacerdotalism in the Mass. Rome interprets this literally and therefore calls for the use of the Mass for the forgiveness of sins. However, the UPCI and others, reject the Mass and the interpretation of Rome specifically, by failing to take this text "literally". And rightly so! They come to a different position from Rome by interpreting the text as to its meaning (symbolic of Jesus’ blood), rather than purely by its words (literal blood).

    Staying with Matthew 26:28, we hear Jesus say that his blood "is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." Clearly, Jesus wants his disciples to make a theological connection between his coming death on the Cross and their forgiveness of sins. This would associate the remission of sins with the blood of Jesus. I believe Jesus is saying that the cup represents or symbolizes his blood. It means that when they take the cup in the future, it is to remind them of the literal blood of Christ shed for their forgiveness. The forgiveness comes by faith in the blood and not by drinking the literal blood of Jesus in the Lord's Supper. I acknowledge that this is what the UPCI interprets Jesus to mean in their view of the Lord’s Supper. But, this interpretation betrays an exegetical, as well as a theological, inconsistency. They do not use the same principle for Matthew 26:28 as they do for Acts 2:38. They take the former as symbolic and the later as literal. In the first passage, they use a more Reformational approach to avoid promoting the Mass. But, in the second passage, they use a sacramental approach and affirm the Roman Catholic position on baptism.

    The fact is, one has only two choices: 1) The Lord’s Supper and Baptism are literally for the remission of sins and therefore the means of remission (ex opere operato) - the position of Rome and some Lutherans); 2) They are both symbolic and illustrate the higher reality of the blood of Christ shed for our sins, which we appropriate by faith (fides qua creditur) - the position of most Reformation/Evangelical churches). Any other position would involve a purely capricious, ambiguous and ultimately, self-serving interpretation of all of Scripture.

    Now we come to the theological problem. If we follow the logic of the first (sacerdotal) approach we find ourselves in direct conflict with the central teaching of Scripture, as we see in Hebrews. The Old Testament connection between the sacrifices commanded by the Law and remission of sins was challenged and supplanted by Christ in His work on the Cross. Even though sacrifices were demanded by God for the sins of the people, these sacrifices were not capable of effecting remission of sins:

    The law . . . can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. If it could, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. [Hebrews 10:1-4]

    The writer of Hebrews says that the Law of Moses is inferior to the work of Jesus Christ, because the sacrificial system it provided was not sufficient to atone for our sins. Only Jesus’ offering of himself as an atoning sacrifice was acceptable to God. Paul makes this point in Romans 3:25,26:

    God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished – he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

    Hebrews identifies that the weakness of the sacrifices was their temporary effect. That they had to be offered again and again, every year, was proof that the previous years sacrifices were imperfect. The writer concludes two things about those sacrifices: 1) The Mosaic sacrifices were merely a reminder to the people of their sinfulness; 2) It is impossible for the blood of animals to take away human sin. Only the superior sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross is sufficient to take away human sin:
  17. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson I Like Traffic Lights

    First he said, ‘Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them’ (although the law required them to be made).

    Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy. The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says: "This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds." Then he adds: "Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more." And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin. (Hebrews 10:11-18 NIV)

    Jesus' sacrificial death on the Cross atones for our sins. Through the blood of Jesus our sins are forgiven, remitted, or washed away. The full panoply of redemption is ours through faith in the work of the Cross of Jesus: We are pardoned, justified, cleansed, reconciled, blessed, sealed, adopted, and raised to new life.

    This brings up further exegetical and theological problems with the remission-of-sins-by-baptism view. There are passages which plainly teach that forgiveness or remission by the blood of Jesus is appropriated by faith alone. In Acts 13:38,39 Paul proclaims that forgiveness comes through faith in Jesus:

    Therefore, my brothers, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. Through him everyone who believes is justified from everything you could not be justified from by the law of Moses. (NIV)

    This is the same belief of the Apostle Peter which we can read in his statement to the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15:7-11:

    After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are." (NIV)

    The meaning of Peter’s call to baptism can not and does not over-throw the teaching of the entire New Testament. He is not replacing one sacerdotal object (a blood sacrifice) with another one (the rite of baptism). He is replacing it with Christ. He is clearly preaching that the old system of blood sacrifices and the Law are superceded by the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ. It is Jesus’ blood which remits all sin, not baptism. Their (and our) baptism is a sign of that forgiveness and a vivid one at that. For those who were guilty of crucifying Jesus, there could not have been a greater nor more humiliating act of submission and repentance than to be baptized "in the name of Jesus" – the very one they murdered. They were to be baptized "in Jesus’ name" or "on account of Jesus." Why? Because it was his death that remitted their sins. It was on account of Jesus’ death on the Cross that they were forgiven. The very blood that they shed in heinous sin would now be the blood of grace and mercy whereby they would be cleansed. This repentance and faith would all be pictured in the beautiful but humbling act of baptism. Ironic and amazing!

    (Gillespie, 2000)
  18. cougan

    cougan Senior Member

    This proves it Scott. You can't find anything in Mark 16:16 in the Greek that would justify an exception to the rule that aorist participles action take place before the main verb no matter if the main verb is past, present, or future. The only reason you can give is by saying that you interpetation of scriputure makes the exception. I submit the only reason you want to make a exception here is because it total destroys your faith only doctrine. Just like A.T. Robertson your Greek interptation must give way to your theolgy. I have clearly shown that baptism is a part of salvation. I showed you that in Acts 2:38, and Acts 22:16 where Pauls sins were washed away. One more example notice this verse.
    Timothy 2:10 Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory. and also
    Ephesians 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:

    I want you to notice that salvation is found in Christ and all spiritual blessing are found in Christ. How do you get into Christ? Lets let the word of God answer this question.
    Galatians 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
    Rom 6:3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized
    into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

    Is that clear enough for you? Its so simple but you make it so hard so you can hold on to your faith only doctrine.

    You could deny that yellow car is yellow but that does'nt change the fact the car is yellow. I already gave you an example of eating and digesting saves you but if you dont eat you will die. Do I have to say if you dont eat and digest you will die in order to make the first part valid? If you dont eat the food you will not be able to digest it now will you? The same is true if you eat but you do not digest you will die. Again, you are changing the meaning of the Greek only when it goes against your view.

    This quite amazing Scott. I showed you with these very verses that someone could belive but still be lost. Even the demons belived in Jesus in James 2 are you going to say that they are saved as well? Just like the body without the spirit is dead, faith without works is dead. So I dont misunderstand what you believe Scott I want to know exactly how is a person saved with your view? In fact put the following in order in which the occur. "repentence, love, baptism, faith, confession". This will help me out greatly to understanding your view better.

    Scott it is pretty bad when you have to twist the word once again. Useing your logic I could say well teaching is part of making a disciple but one does not have to necessarly be taught to be a disciple. After all you cant teach someone while you are baptizing them. Then you try and show that someone could become a disciple by using Jesus and saying he did'nt baptizes anyone therefore you dont have to be baptized to become a disciple. Your taking things out of there proper time line. Did Jesus make the command of baptizing and teaching in the name of the father, son, and HS before here in the great commission? No he did not. Being a diciple is to follow ones teaching. Here in the great commisson we see we are to become a disciple and follow the the teaching of Christ that we must hear the word and be baptized to be a disciple. Again I showed you in the Greek that teaching and baptizing occure at the same time as become a disciple. You even go as far to recognize that baptism is part of being a disciple but that is about as far as you want to take it because if you accept the truth of matter you would being going against your view once again.

    Then you brought out the old stand by well Paul was'nt sent to baptize so baptism is'nt necessary for salvation.
    1 CORINTHIANS 1:12-17
    This passage proves beyond doubt that baptism is necessary in order to be saved. It has often been overlooked, however, as a key to proving its necessity. In verse 13 Paul set down an undeniable truth. He mentions two things that are necessary to belong to Paul, Cephas, Apollos, or Christ. (1) That person must have been crucified for you; (2) you must have been baptized in the name of that person.
    Paul said, "Was Paul crucified for you?" In other words, was Paul crucified so you could be forgiven of your sins? Secondly, "Were you baptized in the name of Paul?" "In the name of" in this passage means that a person baptized in someone's name assigns them to that person. Thus, if any were baptized in the name of Paul they were assigned the name of Paul. They would become "of Paul." This is where the proof resides. In order to be assigned to Christ,-a person must be baptized "in the name of" Christ. Gal. 3:27 makes it clear that "As many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ." If a person belongs to Christ, Christ was crucified for him, and he must also gave been baptized into Him.
    Notice further that Paul was thankful that he didn't baptize many people. The reason was because he feared that some may say they had been baptized in his own name. Again, this overwhelmingly affirms that one must be baptized in the name of Christ to be "of Christ!"
    Some will argue that Paul was saying that baptism wasn't important when he said, "For Christ sent me nest to baptize, but to preach the gospel..." (V17). This simply is not true. Again, Paul was thankful he did riot baptize many because of his fear that some would say they were "of" him.
    Paul would have been disregarding Christs' clear command to "Go and teach all nations, baptizing them ...." (Mat. 28:19). Paul was either disregarding this explicit instruction given by Jesus, or he must have not meant that baptism was not important. Further, if "Christ sent me not to baptize" means that Paul was forbidden to baptize, then he disobeyed Jesus, because he says that he did baptize Crispus and Gaius.
    The word "sent" (Greek, APESTALEV) involves the meaning of "made me an apostle." Jesus made Paul an apostle primarily to preach. Anyone can baptize, but only a select few had the privilage to be an apostle of Christ. It would be impossible for Paul to mean that baptism was not important. He was baptized himself (Acts 22:16). He emphasized that baptism was a burial; (Rom 6:3-5 Col 2:12); he said that it cloths a person with Christ. gal 3:27; and that it puts a person into the body of Christ. 1Cor 12:13.

    I am not saying that these people did'nt have a zeal for God. But having a zeal for God is'nt enough. If they did not obey the word of God and belive, repent, confess, and be baptized having their sins washed away then no they never entered into Christ. The following verse sums it up well. Rom 10:2 For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. 3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God.

    Please answer the following and tell me are the HS baptism or water Baptism.
    Acts 2:38
    John 3:5
    Acts 22:16
    1Cort 12:13
    Rom 6:3;gal 3:27
    1peter 3:21
  19. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson I Like Traffic Lights

    So you can't disprove the exception I showed you earlier, so you resort to this? Very well.

    You have clearly shown nothing. I think it's clear reading the majority of theologians throughout the last 2000 years that it is you and your denomination who are pushing the interpretation to meet your theology. There are way too many questions you have to answer - and you've ignored them all the while.

    We'll do the Galatians 3:27 verse first. This is NOT talking about water baptism. Read carefully:

    The book of Galatians is addressed to a group of local churches. &nbsp;Galatians 1:2 "And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia:"&nbsp;if you are a true "Church of Christ" you believe that local church members are people who have already been baptized in water. If they are not baptized, they are not saved, or members of the church, right? Churches of Christ teach that water baptism is required for salvation and that it puts a person into the church (or body) of Christ as a local church member. One problem with Galatians 3:27 being water baptism is, that since Paul is addressing "churches of Galatia", (who presumably have already been baptized, otherwise, they would not be groups called "churches"), why would he say "for as many of you as have been baptized"? Although these people, to whom he writes, already qualify to be scripturally called "churches", (Gal. 1:3), there is a possibility that some of them have not been baptized! If the baptism of Galatians 3 is water, then a church may exist without water baptism. Among all the problems the churches of Galatia had, they had no difficulty with water baptism. If they were admitting members into their churches without proper water baptism, Paul would have certainly mentioned this error. Those people would have been unbaptized members, as well as being lost, if water baptism is necessary for salvation. However, there is no rebuke for their mode of baptism, or their practice of it, or the admitting of lost people into their membership. Yet there is the distinct possibility that some of the members of the churches of Galatia had not been baptized with the baptism of Gal.3:27. Instead of "all of you have been baptized", which would be the case if the churches practiced water baptism to complete salvation and for church admittance, we read: "For as many of you as have been baptized."Paul rebuked the churches for being "removed" unto another gospel: 1:6. He called them "FOOLISH Galatians": 3:1, for attempting perfection by the flesh. He corrected them for observing "days, and months, and times and years": 4:10. He showed the ridiculous end of mixing law and grace: 5:4. He warned them that liberty was not an occasion of the flesh: 5:13. But, he did not correct their practice of water baptism!! If Galatians 3:27 is a reference to WATER baptism, the churches of Galatia DID NOT require church members to be baptized in water. And if that was the case, Paul agreed with the practice by correcting other errors and leaving that one alone! According to Galatians 3:28, the identification of the believer after that baptism is "...neither Jew nor Greek, neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female..." Water baptism has never eliminated the differentiation between those pairs or eradicated anyone's gender. Saving baptism is baptism of the Holy Spirit (that does NOT mean "tongues"). See Acts 1:5, I Cor. 12:13, and Rom. 8:9.

    So there.

    It's not clear, because I've just disproven it.

    Do you not remember the people who were baptized but lost in Acts? (just wondering) No - demons cannot be saved. They are not human. Christ came to save humanity. This is a false analogy and a logical fallacy.

    So why is baptism singled out as a work? What about not lying? What about any kind of sin? Does that make a person not saved? Baptism is just that - a WORK. Thanks for admitting that.

    Ordi salutus. The Holy Spirit convicts a man of sin. The Holy Spirit offers the gift of eternal life to the believer. Because of the BELIEF that Jesus Christ is LORD, he confesses his sin, and God is faithful and just to forgive that man of sin (I John 1:8). Repentence and confession are the result of belief in Christ. It's in virtually every NT book. "Believe in the Lord and you will be saved." A man will not confess if he doesn't believe. A man will not repent if he doesn't believe. However, millions and millions of men have confessed, repented, and believed WITHOUT water baptism. Are you taking their salvation away?

  20. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson I Like Traffic Lights

    So all of these people, in spite of showing fruits of the Spirit, in spite of doing signs and wonders, in spite of leading others to Christ, in spite of ALL these things, you say they were not saved. This is so BEYOND orthodox Christianity, that it goes without saying.

    So all of these people are lost? ALl these people will be in Hell? Heaven is going to be a much smaller place then. It's a shame God could not let these people into heaven.

    BTW, you're very wrong here.

    Acts 2:38 - I've answered in a previous post.

    John 3:5 - Talks ONLY about being born from a mother. Every man who has been born is "born of water."

    I Corinthians 12:13 - Holy Spirit baptism, since the verse explicitly states so.

    Romans 6:3 - Again, Holy Spirit baptism, as it expressly states so. It is the identification with Christ that is spoken of here.

    Galatians 3:27 - see above.

    I Peter 3:21 -And corresponding to that, baptism now saves you - not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience - through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

    The word of note is antitupon, which means representative of, corresponding to, copy, and so on. Peter's explanatory comment shows us that the act of physical baptism is not what saves, but the "baptism of appeal to God." This appeal to God is by faith the same as Noah's faith in God led him to build the Ark, enter it, and remain in it. It was the Ark that saved Noah, not the flood waters. Water didn't save Noah, nor does it save Christians. Please, please, please do not ignore that! For you to say what you say it does, water would have had to been what saved Noah.

    Again, you have not responded to Acts 10! John 14:7 states that the Holy Spirit will only go to those who have believed. This is the true baptism that saves us, not water immersion!

    I also note that you have not responded to the refutation of the word "eis." Interesting, eh?