For the joy that was set before Him

[Caroljeen]

Poor response. I asked you a question. Please answer it.

It was time between covenants. The thief had his sins forgiven by Jesus then and there.

Name one.

What exactly do you want me to back up? This "Scuffling with words about doctrine is one thing. Back in the early church the losers of doctrinal scuffles were punished."? I was thinking you wanted scriptures on the necessity of water baptism. Please clarify want you mean.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

It was time between covenants. The thief had his sins forgiven by Jesus then and there.'

Are you implying that we're not forgiven until baptized? I'm not trying to be difficult. You had said baptism was a requirement. I'm just asking what for.

What exactly do you want me to back up?

This: "Scuffling with words about doctrine is one thing. Back in the early church the losers of doctrinal scuffles were punished."?

The book of Acts is about the early church. I don't see any punishment for doctrinal "losers" in it.

 

[Caroljeen]

Are you implying that we're not forgiven until baptized? I'm not trying to be difficult. You had said baptism was a requirement. I'm just asking what for.

Water baptism is for the forgiveness of sins, to be "in Christ", part of the new birth and regeneration, and to be buried with Christ.

This: "Scuffling with words about doctrine is one thing. Back in the early church the losers of doctrinal scuffles were punished."?

The book of Acts is about the early church. I don't see any punishment for doctrinal "losers" in it.

I was wrong. For some reason I was thinking baptism and when I went back and checked your post I saw I had misread it. Sorry about the confusion.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

Water baptism is for the forgiveness of sins,

A lot depends on that little preposition for. You had originally used the word "requirement." I certainly don't believe our forgiveness is contingent on our being baptized. Do you?

... to be "in Christ", part of the new birth and regeneration, and to be buried with Christ.

We are all that by faith, not by baptism.

 

[Caroljeen]

A lot depends on that little preposition for. You had originally used the word "requirement." I certainly don't believe our forgiveness is contingent on our being baptized. Do you?
We are all that by faith, not by baptism.

Everything we do is by faith even baptism.

Are you acquainted with Daniel Wallace's "Greek Grammar Beyond The Basics"? It was required for my 3rd semester of Biblical Greek. On page 369- 371, Wallace goes on for a few paragraphs about the use of the word "Eis", in Act 2:28. If you are interested, I can type out those paragraphs tomorrow. We can discuss them.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

Everything we do is by faith even baptism.

You had said that baptism is a requirement. I'm asking you a requirement for what? Surely not for forgiveness, as it kind of seemed you were implying.

Are you acquainted with Daniel Wallace's "Greek Grammar Beyond The Basics"? It was required for my 3rd semester of Biblical Greek. On page 369- 371, Wallace goes on for a few paragraphs about the use of the word "Eis", in Act 2:28. If you are interested, I can type out those paragraphs tomorrow. We can discuss them.

Acts 2:28: Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance.

The word "with?" A few paragraphs? Are we straining at a gnat here?

 

[cjab]

W

You had said that baptism is a requirement. I'm asking you a requirement for what? Surely not for forgiveness, as it kind of seemed you were implying.



Acts 2:28: Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance.

The word "with?" A few paragraphs? Are we straining at a gnat here?

She meant Acts 2:38. As Winer says, p 494ff, "Grammar," Prepositions with the Accusative, III .... (c) in the context of metaphysical matters, eis means "an aim" of some purpose. Further, "Objective and subjective destination, result and purpose, are sometimes not to be separated, e. g., in H. iv. 16, L. ii. 34, Rom. xiv. 1, Jude 21."

Eis is a correlative preposition. I think Wallace is on the wrong track in engaging with "cause" (the ultimate cause is often "God" in metaphysics). Rather as Winer says, the intention is to show result and purpose are divinely instated. They are not to be, or cannot be, or should not be, separated by man. Thus the onus is on the church to baptize, the onus is on the believer to be baptized. Christianity was never conceived as a solo endeavor.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

W

She meant Acts 2:38. As Winer says, p 494ff, "Grammar," Prepositions with the Accusative, III .... (c) in the context of metaphysical matters, eis means "an aim" of some purpose. Further, "Objective and subjective destination, result and purpose, are sometimes not to be separated, e. g., in H. iv. 16, L. ii. 34, Rom. xiv. 1, Jude 21."

Eis is a correlative preposition. I think Wallace is on the wrong track in engaging with "cause" (the ultimate cause is often "God" in metaphysics). Rather as Winer says, the intention is to show result and purpose are divinely instated. They are not to be, or cannot be, or should not be, separated by man. Thus the onus is on the church to baptize, the onus is on the believer to be baptized. Christianity was never conceived as a solo endeavor.

Thanks for the reply. But you know, sometimes one doesn't need a specific interpretation of a verse that seems to go against the character of God in order to find out it doesn't. If I really thought that a particular verse was saying that God wouldn't forgive someone asking for forgiveness who had not been baptized, I would just assume a mistranslation. We Christians should know God better than that.

 

[Caroljeen]

You had said that baptism is a requirement. I'm asking you a requirement for what? Surely not for forgiveness, as it kind of seemed you were implying.



Acts 2:28: Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance.

The word "with?" A few paragraphs? Are we straining at a gnat here?

It's the word "for". What do you think Peter meant in Acts 2:38?

 

[stiggy wiggy]

It's the word "for". What do you think Peter meant in Acts 2:38?

I don't know. But surely you don't think he is saying that God will not forgive someone asking for His forgiveness who has not been baptized. Or do you?

I had previously mentioned the thief on the cross, and you dismissed that as a "poor example." Elaborate, please.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

I've given it some thought and here's what I think. Peter did not say this in an epistle as part of scripture, but rather in a narrative. I think Peter was wrong. Peter said this at a time when he was also wrong about the necessity for another external ritual - circumcision.

 

[Caroljeen]

I've given it some thought and here's what I think. Peter did not say this in an epistle as part of scripture, but rather in a narrative. I think Peter was wrong. Peter said this at a time when he was also wrong about the necessity for another external ritual - circumcision.

Where did Peter say that circumcision was necessary?
Is that like saying Peter didn't believe what he preached? See Acts 10.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

Where did Peter say that circumcision was necessary?
Is that like saying Peter didn't believe what he preached?

No, he always believed what he preached. He changed his mind about circumcision once he had his sheet vision. I'm guessing he also changed his mind about the necessity of baptism for forgiveness.

 

[cjab]

I'm guessing he also changed his mind about the necessity of baptism for forgiveness.

Why would he do that? His letter was written in a different era to his sheet vision.

If you refused to get baptized in the early church, then you were not considered a member of the church, as you were not seen to have repented; and so your sins would not have been recognized as forgiven. Baptism & repentance were inextricably linked in those days. Peter could pedantically have written about baptism for the recognition of forgiveness of sin: this would be more in keeping with forgiveness through the death of Christ. However I think we can understand he was talking about baptism being linked to repentance, which in turn was linked to forgiveness through the gospel.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

Why would he do that?

Probably for the same reason he changed his mind about the necessity of circumcision. God set him straight through revelation or again through Paul.

 

[cjab]

Probably for the same reason he changed his mind about the necessity of circumcision. God set him straight through revelation or again through Paul.

Nonsense. See my argument above.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

Nonsense. See my argument above.

Correct. Your argument above if taken as a defense of Peter's comment that baptism was FOR the forgiveness of sins is indeed nonsense.

In the book of Acts, we see Peter declaring on the first day of the church's history that baptism was FOR the forgiveness of sins. We know this is not true due to (a). Paul never mentioning in his entire theology baptism as effecting forgiveness and (b). the thief on the cross being forgiven without being baptized.

Now does this mean that I am questioning the authority of the Bible? NO, because Peter's speech in Acts 2 is not in his epistle, but instead is part of a narrative. We know Peter was wrong about circumcision being a requirement for forgiveness, as we later on see him corrected by a vision. Likewise I believe he was wrong about baptism.

 

[cjab]

Correct. Your argument above if taken as a defense of Peter's comment that baptism was FOR the forgiveness of sins is indeed nonsense.

In the book of Acts, we see Peter declaring on the first day of the church's history that baptism was FOR the forgiveness of sins. We know this is not true due to (a). Paul never mentioning in his entire theology baptism as effecting forgiveness and (b). the thief on the cross being forgiven without being baptized.

Now does this mean that I am questioning the authority of the Bible? NO, because Peter's speech in Acts 2 is not in his epistle, but instead is part of a narrative. We know Peter was wrong about circumcision being a requirement for forgiveness, as we later on see him corrected by a vision. Likewise I believe he was wrong about baptism.

You don't seem to be able to understand what I say. Repentance was seen by Peter as inextricably linked to baptism. In the early church repentance had to involve a public declaration in baptism: such is plain from 1 Peter 3:21. Baptism and repentance were seen as synonymous in those days. Paul also connects baptism and repentance. Unless you got baptized, then you hadn't repented. Repentance had to be public, not just a private resolution of the will. Without repentance, there is no forgiveness (see Jesus's meeting with Zacchaeus). This is why baptism is linked to salvation in the NT.

There is a problem with modern day evangelists in that they do not link repentance to baptism. This is an error (except for those who have already been baptized - re-baptism isn't necessary).

You are not seeing the wood from the trees.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

You don't seem to be able to understand what I say. Repentance was seen by Peter as inextricably linked to baptism. In the early church repentance had to involve a public declaration in baptism: such is plain from 1 Peter 3:21. Baptism and repentance were seen as synonymous in those days. Paul also connects baptism and repentance. Unless you got baptized, then you hadn't repented. Repentance had to be public, not just a private resolution of the will. Without repentance, there is no forgiveness (see Jesus's meeting with Zacchaeus). This is why baptism is linked to salvation in the NT.

There is a problem with modern day evangelists in that they do not link repentance to baptism. This is an error (except for those who have already been baptized - re-baptism isn't necessary.
You are not seeing the wood from the trees.

Let's cut to the chase: Do YOU (Not Peter on the day of Pentecost), cjab believe that baptism is required for sins to be forgiven?

 

[cjab]

Let's cut to the chase: Do YOU (Not Peter on the day of Pentecost), cjab believe that baptism is required for sins to be forgiven?

That's a question that manifestly fails to understand what baptism connotes, which is not "the washing of dirt from the body" per Peter, but the pledge of a clean conscience before God. (1 Pet 3:21). It is apparent that in this day, "baptism" has come to signify something different from what it did in the early church, even something manifestly contrary to what it did before (i.e. JUST the washing of dirt from the body). Being immersed in a pool is not what baptism meant to Peter.