"EIS" OR "DIA" OR "HOTI" ??
- Thread starter DJ2
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
In post #117, I clearly pointed out what the gospel is and what the gospel is not and Paul made it clear that the god of this world has blinded the minds of those who do not believe the gospel. Those who teach salvation by works (add works to the gospel) do not believe the gospel. Plain and simple.
We are not merely talking about various blessings which follow various acts of obedience. We are talking about the gift of eternal life which is received through faith in Christ.
Acts of obedience/works which follow authentic faith in Christ are the fruit, by product and demonstrative evidence of authentic faith in Christ, but not the essence of faith and not the means of our salvation.
It doesn't take a special understanding of God's word, as if only a select few Christians can discern between what the gospel is and what the gospel is not. I simply test what people say in light of what Scripture says. Only God infallibly knows the hearts of everyone, but it's not difficult to figure out who is and who is not perverting the gospel of Christ which is the power of God unto salvation for everyone who BELIEVES.. (Romans 1:16). There are many people who profess Jesus as Lord openly, who will be shocked to find out that their so called many wonderful works are not what saves them (Matthew 7:21-23).
I am simply a Christian who believes the gospel. I can spot a false gospel from a mile away and those who do not believe the gospel are blinded by the god of this world. I grew up in the Roman Catholic church and had also spent some time in the so called church of Christ (prior to my conversion), so I understand how false religions try to "shoe horn" works "into" salvation through faith.
The problem is, you see acts of obedience/works which "follow" saving faith in Christ as part of the gospel. The act of obedience that saves is choosing to believe the gospel (Romans 1:16; 10:16). It's not believe the gospel, then accomplish a check list of works "afterwards" and then you will be saved. That is a "works based" false gospel.
What you see is "water baptized or condemned," yet Jesus said whoever does not believe will be condemned (Mark 16:16(b); John 3:18). You "add" water baptism to the gospel of Christ. Water baptism is for "in regards to/on the basis of" the remission of sins, and not in order to obtain the remission of sins. In Matthew 3:11, we read - "I baptize you with water FOR repentance.." Was this baptism FOR "in order to obtain" repentance or for "in regards to/on the basis of" repentance?
You believe that water baptism obtains the remission of sins (baptized or condemned). You "add" works to the gospel of Christ which means that you refuse to trust in CHRIST ALONE for salvation. Christ saves us through faith based on the merits of His finished work of redemption alone and not based on the merits of our works. Christ's finished work of redemption is sufficient and complete to save. No supplements needed.
Either you are trusting in Christ's finished work of redemption as the ALL-sufficient means of your salvation or else you are trusting in Christ + works. You can't have it both ways.
I understand that Jesus is the way, the truth and the light and that nobody comes to the Father except through Him. Not through religion, not through works. John 3:16 cannot be added to or taken away from. Those who believe in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. Period. No and's, if's or but's.
I've heard many Roman Catholics say the same thing, yet it all boils down to WHO and WHAT are we really trusting in for salvation? CHRIST ALONE or Christ "plus something else?" Unfortunately, for many people who profess to be Christians it's Christ "plus something else."
I've heard many people say they see "believing in Him" (John 3:16) to receive eternal life as "believing in everything that Jesus says and commands," then such people end up believing/trusting in what they do for Jesus to receive eternal life, rather than believing/trusting in what Jesus has already done for us to receive eternal life, which is not truly trusting in Him for salvation, but trusting in works.
Water baptism is a work of righteousness (Matthew 3:15) "which follows believing in Him and receiving remission of sins" (Acts 10:43-47; 11:17,18) and we are not saved by works of righteousness which we have done.. (Titus 3:5).
Losing blessings (or even rewards - 1 Corinthians 3:13-15) is not the same thing as losing salvation.
Are you suggesting here that genuine believers do not run the race, have not knocked until it opens, don't have full lamps and have not put on wedding garments?
We are not merely talking about various blessings which follow various acts of obedience. We are talking about the gift of eternal life which is received through faith in Christ.
Acts of obedience/works which follow authentic faith in Christ are the fruit, by product and demonstrative evidence of authentic faith in Christ, but not the essence of faith and not the means of our salvation.
It doesn't take a special understanding of God's word, as if only a select few Christians can discern between what the gospel is and what the gospel is not. I simply test what people say in light of what Scripture says. Only God infallibly knows the hearts of everyone, but it's not difficult to figure out who is and who is not perverting the gospel of Christ which is the power of God unto salvation for everyone who BELIEVES.. (Romans 1:16). There are many people who profess Jesus as Lord openly, who will be shocked to find out that their so called many wonderful works are not what saves them (Matthew 7:21-23).
I am simply a Christian who believes the gospel. I can spot a false gospel from a mile away and those who do not believe the gospel are blinded by the god of this world. I grew up in the Roman Catholic church and had also spent some time in the so called church of Christ (prior to my conversion), so I understand how false religions try to "shoe horn" works "into" salvation through faith.
The problem is, you see acts of obedience/works which "follow" saving faith in Christ as part of the gospel. The act of obedience that saves is choosing to believe the gospel (Romans 1:16; 10:16). It's not believe the gospel, then accomplish a check list of works "afterwards" and then you will be saved. That is a "works based" false gospel.
What you see is "water baptized or condemned," yet Jesus said whoever does not believe will be condemned (Mark 16:16(b); John 3:18). You "add" water baptism to the gospel of Christ. Water baptism is for "in regards to/on the basis of" the remission of sins, and not in order to obtain the remission of sins. In Matthew 3:11, we read - "I baptize you with water FOR repentance.." Was this baptism FOR "in order to obtain" repentance or for "in regards to/on the basis of" repentance?
You believe that water baptism obtains the remission of sins (baptized or condemned). You "add" works to the gospel of Christ which means that you refuse to trust in CHRIST ALONE for salvation. Christ saves us through faith based on the merits of His finished work of redemption alone and not based on the merits of our works. Christ's finished work of redemption is sufficient and complete to save. No supplements needed.
Either you are trusting in Christ's finished work of redemption as the ALL-sufficient means of your salvation or else you are trusting in Christ + works. You can't have it both ways.
I understand that Jesus is the way, the truth and the light and that nobody comes to the Father except through Him. Not through religion, not through works. John 3:16 cannot be added to or taken away from. Those who believe in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. Period. No and's, if's or but's.
I've heard many Roman Catholics say the same thing, yet it all boils down to WHO and WHAT are we really trusting in for salvation? CHRIST ALONE or Christ "plus something else?" Unfortunately, for many people who profess to be Christians it's Christ "plus something else."
I've heard many people say they see "believing in Him" (John 3:16) to receive eternal life as "believing in everything that Jesus says and commands," then such people end up believing/trusting in what they do for Jesus to receive eternal life, rather than believing/trusting in what Jesus has already done for us to receive eternal life, which is not truly trusting in Him for salvation, but trusting in works.
Water baptism is a work of righteousness (Matthew 3:15) "which follows believing in Him and receiving remission of sins" (Acts 10:43-47; 11:17,18) and we are not saved by works of righteousness which we have done.. (Titus 3:5).
Losing blessings (or even rewards - 1 Corinthians 3:13-15) is not the same thing as losing salvation.
Are you suggesting here that genuine believers do not run the race, have not knocked until it opens, don't have full lamps and have not put on wedding garments?
If verses like John 3:16 truly are all-encompassing then we really do have a contradiction. There is no way to harmonize such verses as Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16 or 1st Peter 3:21 with John 3:16 as a definitive statement. Any attempt to do so is clearly forced and extreme logic and grammar leaps are needed.
Accepting John 3:16 as it was meant to be (general in nature) makes perfect sense and follows the flow and form of the Old and New Testament.
I am not surprised by your refusal to answer my question about how you would label such verses as Proverbs 22:6. Most "faith alone" sects will not. So unless you can tell me how you decide which verses are absolute I must assume you are cherry-picking them. You seem intent on choosing only verses that fit into your "faith only" gospel as definitive and all others as auxiliary to the definitive. This gospel is one of your own making. Your gospel may seem attractive to many but an elementary search of scripture proves it to be false. The carnal man wishing to sleep at night accepts this message but the spirit-filled Christian knows better.
Taking general statements and labeling them absolute is faulty reasoning. This is true in both secular and biblical writing.
Accepting John 3:16 as it was meant to be (general in nature) makes perfect sense and follows the flow and form of the Old and New Testament.
I am not surprised by your refusal to answer my question about how you would label such verses as Proverbs 22:6. Most "faith alone" sects will not. So unless you can tell me how you decide which verses are absolute I must assume you are cherry-picking them. You seem intent on choosing only verses that fit into your "faith only" gospel as definitive and all others as auxiliary to the definitive. This gospel is one of your own making. Your gospel may seem attractive to many but an elementary search of scripture proves it to be false. The carnal man wishing to sleep at night accepts this message but the spirit-filled Christian knows better.
Taking general statements and labeling them absolute is faulty reasoning. This is true in both secular and biblical writing.
-
1
- Show all
What lexicon by Bauer are you referring to? By the early 1900’s, the new studies in the lexicography of Koine Greek had become so great in number and significance that Erwin Preuschen published his Greek-German lexicon in 1910. Upon his death in 1920, the revision of his lexicon was entrusted to Walter Bauer and this revision was published in 1928 as the second edition. In 1930, James Hope Mouton and George Milligan independently published The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament. A thoroughly revised edition of the Preuschen lexicon was published in 1937 with only Bauer’s name on the title page. Bauer realized, however, that his lexicon, although a huge improvement over Thayer’s in terms of accuracy and completeness, needed to be thoroughly revised and updated and therefore undertook a thorough search of all Greek literature down to the Byzantine times to determine more precisely the meaning of the words found in the New Testament. This resulted in the publication of the monumental work, Griechisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der übrigen urchristlichen Literatur in 1949-1952. An English translation (by William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich) of this lexicon was published by the University of Chicago in 1957 with the title, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature and became widely known as the “Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich Lexicon.” A second edition was published by the University of Chicago in 1979. A thorough revision by Frederick William Danker was published by the University of Chicago in 2000. It is very commonly referred to simply as the “BDAG” and this name appears on the title page in parenthesis below the full title.
In the paragraph, “Other uses of εἰς, the BDAG gives “at” and “in the face of” as meanings for ͂ εἰς, and cites Mt 12:41 and Lk 11:32, and adds, “cp. Ro 4:20 and perh. Mt. 3:11. JMantey, JBL. 70, ’51, 45-48, 309-11 argues for a causal use here because of the proclam., with reff.; against him RMarcus, ibid. 129f; 71, ’52, 43f; JDavis, Restoration Qtrly 24, ’81, 80-88.”
In the paragraph, “Other uses of εἰς, the BDAG gives “at” and “in the face of” as meanings for ͂ εἰς, and cites Mt 12:41 and Lk 11:32, and adds, “cp. Ro 4:20 and perh. Mt. 3:11. JMantey, JBL. 70, ’51, 45-48, 309-11 argues for a causal use here because of the proclam., with reff.; against him RMarcus, ibid. 129f; 71, ’52, 43f; JDavis, Restoration Qtrly 24, ’81, 80-88.”
I checked the commentaries on the Greek text of Matthew by Willoughby C. Allen (1912), Robert H. France (2007), Donald A. Hagner (1993), Alan Hugh McNeile (1915), James Morison (1884), John Nolland (2005), and Alfred Plummer (1915), and they all translate εἰς as ‘at.’
I also checked the commentaries on the Greek text of Luke by Darrell L. Bock (two volumes, 1994, 1996), John Martin Creed (1930), Joseph A. Fitzmyer (two volumes, 1981, 1985), I. Howard Marshall (1978), John Nolland (three volumes, 1989, 1993, 1993), and Alfred Plummer (1896). Bock translates εἰς as ‘at.’ Creed give no translation for εἰς. Fitzmyer translates εἰς as ‘at.’ Marshall writes, “for the use of εἰς ‘at, because of’ cf. BD 207.” This is a reference to paragraph #207 on page 112 in A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature by F. Blass and A Debrunner (1961). In that paragraph we read, in part, “Causal εἰς: J. R. Mantey, JBL, 70, (1951) 45-8, 309-12; R. Marcus, op. cit. 129f.; 71 (1952) 43f.” Nolland writes, “Repentance is an even more appropriate response to the ministry of Jesus than it was to the preaching of Jonah.” Plummer interestingly writes, “εἰς τὸ κήρυγμα. ‘In accordance with the preaching’ they repented; i.e. they turned towards it and conformed to it; comp. ἐζωγρημένοι ὑπ᾿ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸ ἐκείνου θέλημα (2 Tim. ii. 26); or ‘out of regard to it’ they repented; comp….”
However, there is no question but what Jesus is saying that the men of Nineveh will stand up and condemn His generation in response to the preaching of Jonah—that is, they will do so because of the preaching of Jonah. Indeed, Allen writes in his commentary, “The idea is that at the final judgment the men of Nineveh will indict this generation for not having repented at the preaching of Christ, who had been a greater sign to them than Jonah had been to the Ninevites.”
The relevance of this to Acts 2:38 (see the opening post) is that Mantey, being a Baptist, did not believe that baptism results in salvation, and therefore interpreted the εἰς in Acts 2:38 to be causal. Knowing that the causal use of εἰς in the New Testament was doubted by many, he cited Mt 12:41 and Lk 11:32 and argued from these verses that there is a causal use of εἰς in the New Testament. Based upon that argument, he believed that Acts 2:38 should be understood to mean,
38. Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ because of the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
However, the verse is correctly translated as,
Acts 2:38 And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (RSV, 1971)
or,
Acts 2:38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (NRSV, 1989)
I also checked the commentaries on the Greek text of Luke by Darrell L. Bock (two volumes, 1994, 1996), John Martin Creed (1930), Joseph A. Fitzmyer (two volumes, 1981, 1985), I. Howard Marshall (1978), John Nolland (three volumes, 1989, 1993, 1993), and Alfred Plummer (1896). Bock translates εἰς as ‘at.’ Creed give no translation for εἰς. Fitzmyer translates εἰς as ‘at.’ Marshall writes, “for the use of εἰς ‘at, because of’ cf. BD 207.” This is a reference to paragraph #207 on page 112 in A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature by F. Blass and A Debrunner (1961). In that paragraph we read, in part, “Causal εἰς: J. R. Mantey, JBL, 70, (1951) 45-8, 309-12; R. Marcus, op. cit. 129f.; 71 (1952) 43f.” Nolland writes, “Repentance is an even more appropriate response to the ministry of Jesus than it was to the preaching of Jonah.” Plummer interestingly writes, “εἰς τὸ κήρυγμα. ‘In accordance with the preaching’ they repented; i.e. they turned towards it and conformed to it; comp. ἐζωγρημένοι ὑπ᾿ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸ ἐκείνου θέλημα (2 Tim. ii. 26); or ‘out of regard to it’ they repented; comp….”
However, there is no question but what Jesus is saying that the men of Nineveh will stand up and condemn His generation in response to the preaching of Jonah—that is, they will do so because of the preaching of Jonah. Indeed, Allen writes in his commentary, “The idea is that at the final judgment the men of Nineveh will indict this generation for not having repented at the preaching of Christ, who had been a greater sign to them than Jonah had been to the Ninevites.”
The relevance of this to Acts 2:38 (see the opening post) is that Mantey, being a Baptist, did not believe that baptism results in salvation, and therefore interpreted the εἰς in Acts 2:38 to be causal. Knowing that the causal use of εἰς in the New Testament was doubted by many, he cited Mt 12:41 and Lk 11:32 and argued from these verses that there is a causal use of εἰς in the New Testament. Based upon that argument, he believed that Acts 2:38 should be understood to mean,
38. Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ because of the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
However, the verse is correctly translated as,
Acts 2:38 And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (RSV, 1971)
or,
Acts 2:38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (NRSV, 1989)
The best rendering of εἰς regarding the preaching of Jonah is 'at', not 'because of' and it represents a point action. This is a legitimate use of εἰς.
There is simply no such thing as a casual use of εἰς and all the linguistics in the world will not give εἰς backward motion, I do not care how many insist upon it o what their credentials are. The idea of a casual use of εἰς was never even conceived of until Robertson introduced the idea to Monty. There are established rules of grammar that determine the use of 'because' in any text. As Angela commented in an earlier post, "In order for 'because' to be used, you need to have a full clause, led by a subordinate conjunction. So, a clause needs a subject and a verb. Forgiveness is obviously a noun, but there is no verb in the phrase, therefore it cannot be a subordinate clause, and 'because' cannot be used." There are rules to the use of grammar that must be followed in any language or language has no meaning. Robertson knows this is true yet he is willing to ignore or violate this rule to simply to make the text comply with his soteriology. Robertson admits that his treatment of εἰς in verse 38 is not based on any existing rules of grammar but on his soteriology. That should tell you something about his motives for his invention of the casual use of εἰς. Robertson comments, and I quote, "One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not. My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission." Robertson is making the same mistake that so many people make in reading scripture. He is allowing his already established beliefs to create a reading of the text instead of allowing the grammatical structure of the text to formulate his soteriology.
The point is this. Robertson KNOWS what this verse says. He simply does not like what it says or implies. Since the grammar does not agree with his soteriology, he attempts to reconstruct the grammar in such a way that it will. It is interesting to me that Beisner and Mantey, with all of their skills in the language, had never been able to arrive at these conclusions until Robertson offered them this alternative rendering. If this reading is correct, then why have others of Robertson's class never independently arrived at this same conclusion? If this reading is correct, then why has no scholar or group of scholars ever been willing to put their reputations on the line and issue a translation that renders Acts 2:38 in this way or to translate εἰς as 'because of' in any other verse of scripture. The answer is simple. The know it is wrong.
There is simply no such thing as a casual use of εἰς and all the linguistics in the world will not give εἰς backward motion, I do not care how many insist upon it o what their credentials are. The idea of a casual use of εἰς was never even conceived of until Robertson introduced the idea to Monty. There are established rules of grammar that determine the use of 'because' in any text. As Angela commented in an earlier post, "In order for 'because' to be used, you need to have a full clause, led by a subordinate conjunction. So, a clause needs a subject and a verb. Forgiveness is obviously a noun, but there is no verb in the phrase, therefore it cannot be a subordinate clause, and 'because' cannot be used." There are rules to the use of grammar that must be followed in any language or language has no meaning. Robertson knows this is true yet he is willing to ignore or violate this rule to simply to make the text comply with his soteriology. Robertson admits that his treatment of εἰς in verse 38 is not based on any existing rules of grammar but on his soteriology. That should tell you something about his motives for his invention of the casual use of εἰς. Robertson comments, and I quote, "One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not. My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission." Robertson is making the same mistake that so many people make in reading scripture. He is allowing his already established beliefs to create a reading of the text instead of allowing the grammatical structure of the text to formulate his soteriology.
The point is this. Robertson KNOWS what this verse says. He simply does not like what it says or implies. Since the grammar does not agree with his soteriology, he attempts to reconstruct the grammar in such a way that it will. It is interesting to me that Beisner and Mantey, with all of their skills in the language, had never been able to arrive at these conclusions until Robertson offered them this alternative rendering. If this reading is correct, then why have others of Robertson's class never independently arrived at this same conclusion? If this reading is correct, then why has no scholar or group of scholars ever been willing to put their reputations on the line and issue a translation that renders Acts 2:38 in this way or to translate εἰς as 'because of' in any other verse of scripture. The answer is simple. The know it is wrong.
So Peter said, repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus for the forgiveness of your sins. When Peter went to the house of Cornelius ,and God gave the Spirit, when the people believed in Jesus, and before water baptism, then God made it plain that we are saved by FAITH and not by water baptism. So the argument of how Peter presented salvation on Pentecost is secondary to that action of God giving the Spirit by faith.
You are making a poor assumption. There is no mention of them being saved when the Holy Spirit fell upon them, you are aware of this? They very well may have come to faith listening to Peter but to assume that this was the point of remission of sins is not proved by these verses. The Holy Spirit has fallen on many throughout the Bible and it is never a point of salvation. King Saul, Joshua, Bezaleel and Samson were all filled with the Holy Spirit for one reason or the other but not as proof of salvation. The Holy Spirit falling upon them was a sign to the Jews that the Gospel was meant for the Gentiles as well. This was the purpose of the event and its biblical recording.
You do not seem to understand the difference between the baptism of the Holy Spirit, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and the empowering of the Holy Spirit. These are three entirely different things with entirely different functions. Contrary to popular opinion, the empowering of the Holy Spirit was never an indication that a person was saved. Like Peter says, this was simply an indication that the Holy Spirit had also been poured out on the Gentiles as well as the Jews. This took place on Pentecost in chapter two. Peter also confirms that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit was one of two things that resulted from having been baptized.
Let us not confuse the word ‘because’ with the phrase ‘because of.’ The issue is whether Acts 2:38 should be, or even accurately can be, translated as,
38. Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ because of the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
A very much fuller and more accurate definition of εἰς is given in the third edition (2000) of the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature.
Again, the issue is not about ‘because;’ the issue is about ‘because of.’ Furthermore, the translation being argued for is,
Acts 2:38 And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ because of the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
This is a perfectly good sentence. The conjunction ‘because of’ joins together a sentence and a phrase. Conjunctions join together sentences, clauses, phrases or words—not necessarily sentences and clauses.
In the Greek text of Ephesians chapter one, verses 1-2 are one sentence, verses 3-14 are the second sentence, and verse 15 is the beginning of a third sentence that concludes at the end of verse 23. Some translations translate it accordingly, including the American Standard Version of 1901. When this translation was revised in 1971, verses 3-14 were divided as follows:
3. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places,
4. even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him.
5. He destined us in love to be his sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,
6. to the praise of his glorious grace which he freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.
7. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace
8. which he lavished upon us.
9. For he has made known to us in all wisdom and insight the mystery of his will, according to his purpose which he set forth in Christ
10. as a plan for the fulness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.
11. In him, according to the purpose of him who accomplishes all things according to the counsel of his will,
12. we who first hoped in Christ have been destined and appointed to live for the praise of his glory.
13. In him you also, who have heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and have believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit,
14. which is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.
In so doing, the translators translated dependent clauses as independent clauses, changing the meaning of the original sentence to make it ‘more readable.’ Most other translations also divide the original Greek sentence into three or more sentences.
The phrase “because of the forgiveness of sins" makes sense in both English and Greek. Robertson was not an ignorant schoolboy and did not make such ludicrous mistakes. His mistake was to read his Baptist theology into a verse in the Bible.
38. Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ because of the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
A very much fuller and more accurate definition of εἰς is given in the third edition (2000) of the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature.
Again, the issue is not about ‘because;’ the issue is about ‘because of.’ Furthermore, the translation being argued for is,
Acts 2:38 And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ because of the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
This is a perfectly good sentence. The conjunction ‘because of’ joins together a sentence and a phrase. Conjunctions join together sentences, clauses, phrases or words—not necessarily sentences and clauses.
In the Greek text of Ephesians chapter one, verses 1-2 are one sentence, verses 3-14 are the second sentence, and verse 15 is the beginning of a third sentence that concludes at the end of verse 23. Some translations translate it accordingly, including the American Standard Version of 1901. When this translation was revised in 1971, verses 3-14 were divided as follows:
3. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places,
4. even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him.
5. He destined us in love to be his sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,
6. to the praise of his glorious grace which he freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.
7. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace
8. which he lavished upon us.
9. For he has made known to us in all wisdom and insight the mystery of his will, according to his purpose which he set forth in Christ
10. as a plan for the fulness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.
11. In him, according to the purpose of him who accomplishes all things according to the counsel of his will,
12. we who first hoped in Christ have been destined and appointed to live for the praise of his glory.
13. In him you also, who have heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and have believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit,
14. which is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.
In so doing, the translators translated dependent clauses as independent clauses, changing the meaning of the original sentence to make it ‘more readable.’ Most other translations also divide the original Greek sentence into three or more sentences.
The phrase “because of the forgiveness of sins" makes sense in both English and Greek. Robertson was not an ignorant schoolboy and did not make such ludicrous mistakes. His mistake was to read his Baptist theology into a verse in the Bible.
There is no contradiction. Whoever believes in Him "apart from additions or modifications" shall not perish, but have eternal life and there is a clear distinction between believing in Him "AND" getting water baptized afterwards.
There certainly is. In Acts 2:38, "for the remission of sins" does not refer back to both clauses, "you all repent" and "each one of you be baptized," but refers only to the first. Peter is saying "repent unto the remission of your sins," the same as in Acts 3:19. The clause "each one of you be baptized" is parenthetical. This is exactly what Acts 3:19 teaches except that Peter omits the parenthesis.
*Also compare the fact that these Gentiles in Acts 10:45 received the gift of the Holy Spirit (compare with Acts 2:38 - the gift of the Holy Spirit) when they BELIEVED and this was before water baptism (Acts 10:47).
*In Acts 10:43 we read ..whoever believes in Him receives remission of sins. Again, these Gentiles received the gift of the Holy Spirit - Acts 10:45 - (compare with Acts 2:38 - the gift of the Holy Spirit) when they believed on the Lord Jesus Christ - Acts 11:17 - (compare with Acts 16:31 - Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved) BEFORE water baptism - Acts 10:47 - this is referred to as repentance unto life - Acts 11:18.
*So the only logical conclusion after properly harmonizing Scripture with Scripture is that faith in Jesus Christ "implied in genuine repentance" (rather than water baptism) brings the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31; 26:18). *Perfect Harmony*
In regards to Acts 22:16, as Greek scholar AT Robertson points out, baptism here pictures the washing away of sins by the blood of Christ, but it does not literally wash away our sins, contrary to your conclusion. In Acts 10:43, receiving remission of sins is connected with "believes in Him" and not with baptism (Acts 10:43-47). In Acts 9, Jesus told Ananias that Paul "is a chosen vessel unto Me" (v. 15), although the apostle had not yet been baptized. Before Paul was baptized, Christ had already commissioned him to "bear [His] name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel" (Acts 9:15); such a commission is not God’s portion for one still lost and under wrath. Before Paul’s baptism, Christ had set him aside as one who would "suffer for His name’s sake" (9:16). Can one who is a child of the devil, as all the lost are (Ephesians 2:1-3, John 8:44), really suffer for Christ’s sake? NO. God accepted Paul’s prayers before his baptism (Acts 9:11). People in the church of Christ teach that God does not hear an unsaved man's prayer, quoting in this regard John 9:31 - "We know that God does not listen to sinners. He listens to the godly man who does his will." Well, Paul was a worshipper of God, calling Christ "Lord" and then setting out to do His will. All of these things characterized Paul before he was baptized. So, Paul had already believed in Christ when Ananias came to pray for him to receive his sight (Acts 9:17). It also should be noted that Paul at the time when Ananias prayed for him to receive his sight, he was filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 9:17)--this was before he was water baptized (Acts 9:18). Verse 17 connects his being filled with the Spirit with the receiving of his sight. We know that he received his sight prior to his baptism. *No Scripture is to be interpreted in isolation from the totality of Scripture. Practically speaking, a singular and obscure verse is to be subservient to to multiple and clear verses, and not vice versa. *Perfect Harmony* with John 3:16.
In 1 Peter 3:21, Peter tells us that baptism now saves you, yet when Peter uses this phrase he continues in the same sentence to explain exactly what he means by it. He says that baptism now saves you-not the removal of dirt from the flesh (that is, not as an outward, physical act which washes dirt from the body--that is not what saves you), "but an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (that is, as an inward, spiritual transaction between God and the individual, a transaction that is symbolized by the outward ceremony of water baptism). Just as the eight people in the ark were "saved THROUGH water" as they were IN THE ARK. They were not literally saved "by" the water. Hebrews 11:7 is clear on this point (..built an ARK for the SAVING of his household). *NOTE: The context reveals that ONLY the righteous (Noah and his family) were DRY and therefore SAFE. In contrast, ONLY THE WICKED IN NOAH'S DAY CAME IN CONTACT WITH THE WATER AND THEY ALL PERISHED. *Perfect Harmony* with John 3:16.
Says you.
You accept John 3:16 ONLY AFTER you erroneously try to "shoe horn" baptism "into" believes in Him.
I'm not surprised that you would resort to such faulty human logic which does not prove your point about John 3:16. Most "faith IN CHRIST ALONE sects" don't like to play games with works-salvationists. Proverbs 22:6 would include multiple instructions on how to train up a child. John 3:16 does not include a check list of works. The Bible is inspired by God and is not simply a novel that we come to fully understand through mere human intelligence.
You are making this out to be much more complicated than it really is. Unless you can tell me what it truly means to "believe in Him/believe the gospel" I must assume that you don't truly believe the gospel. You seem intent on choosing only verses that that fit your "watered down" works based false gospel. You must harmonize Scripture with Scripture before reaching the proper conclusion on doctrine instead of distorting and perverting passages of Scripture in an effort to "patch together" your so called gospel plan.
The gospel is the "good news" of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ (1 Corinthians 15:1-4) and is the power of God unto salvation for everyone who BELIEVES.. (Romans 1:16). That is scriptural and is not of my own making. Your gospel of salvation by "water and works" on the other hand is of your own making.
The spirit-filled Christian understands that salvation is by grace through faith, not works (Ephesians 2:8,9). The natural man does not understand...and is spiritually discerned (1 Corinthians 2:14). The gospel is hid to those who don't believe (2 Corinthians 4:3,4).
Whoever believes in Him "apart from additions or modifications" shall not perish, but have eternal life is absolutely true. "Adding" water baptism and other works to "believes in Him" is faulty reasoning no matter how you label it. You obviously don't understand what it truly means to "believe in Him/believe the gospel."
There certainly is. In Acts 2:38, "for the remission of sins" does not refer back to both clauses, "you all repent" and "each one of you be baptized," but refers only to the first. Peter is saying "repent unto the remission of your sins," the same as in Acts 3:19. The clause "each one of you be baptized" is parenthetical. This is exactly what Acts 3:19 teaches except that Peter omits the parenthesis.
*Also compare the fact that these Gentiles in Acts 10:45 received the gift of the Holy Spirit (compare with Acts 2:38 - the gift of the Holy Spirit) when they BELIEVED and this was before water baptism (Acts 10:47).
*In Acts 10:43 we read ..whoever believes in Him receives remission of sins. Again, these Gentiles received the gift of the Holy Spirit - Acts 10:45 - (compare with Acts 2:38 - the gift of the Holy Spirit) when they believed on the Lord Jesus Christ - Acts 11:17 - (compare with Acts 16:31 - Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved) BEFORE water baptism - Acts 10:47 - this is referred to as repentance unto life - Acts 11:18.
*So the only logical conclusion after properly harmonizing Scripture with Scripture is that faith in Jesus Christ "implied in genuine repentance" (rather than water baptism) brings the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31; 26:18). *Perfect Harmony*
In regards to Acts 22:16, as Greek scholar AT Robertson points out, baptism here pictures the washing away of sins by the blood of Christ, but it does not literally wash away our sins, contrary to your conclusion. In Acts 10:43, receiving remission of sins is connected with "believes in Him" and not with baptism (Acts 10:43-47). In Acts 9, Jesus told Ananias that Paul "is a chosen vessel unto Me" (v. 15), although the apostle had not yet been baptized. Before Paul was baptized, Christ had already commissioned him to "bear [His] name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel" (Acts 9:15); such a commission is not God’s portion for one still lost and under wrath. Before Paul’s baptism, Christ had set him aside as one who would "suffer for His name’s sake" (9:16). Can one who is a child of the devil, as all the lost are (Ephesians 2:1-3, John 8:44), really suffer for Christ’s sake? NO. God accepted Paul’s prayers before his baptism (Acts 9:11). People in the church of Christ teach that God does not hear an unsaved man's prayer, quoting in this regard John 9:31 - "We know that God does not listen to sinners. He listens to the godly man who does his will." Well, Paul was a worshipper of God, calling Christ "Lord" and then setting out to do His will. All of these things characterized Paul before he was baptized. So, Paul had already believed in Christ when Ananias came to pray for him to receive his sight (Acts 9:17). It also should be noted that Paul at the time when Ananias prayed for him to receive his sight, he was filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 9:17)--this was before he was water baptized (Acts 9:18). Verse 17 connects his being filled with the Spirit with the receiving of his sight. We know that he received his sight prior to his baptism. *No Scripture is to be interpreted in isolation from the totality of Scripture. Practically speaking, a singular and obscure verse is to be subservient to to multiple and clear verses, and not vice versa. *Perfect Harmony* with John 3:16.
In 1 Peter 3:21, Peter tells us that baptism now saves you, yet when Peter uses this phrase he continues in the same sentence to explain exactly what he means by it. He says that baptism now saves you-not the removal of dirt from the flesh (that is, not as an outward, physical act which washes dirt from the body--that is not what saves you), "but an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (that is, as an inward, spiritual transaction between God and the individual, a transaction that is symbolized by the outward ceremony of water baptism). Just as the eight people in the ark were "saved THROUGH water" as they were IN THE ARK. They were not literally saved "by" the water. Hebrews 11:7 is clear on this point (..built an ARK for the SAVING of his household). *NOTE: The context reveals that ONLY the righteous (Noah and his family) were DRY and therefore SAFE. In contrast, ONLY THE WICKED IN NOAH'S DAY CAME IN CONTACT WITH THE WATER AND THEY ALL PERISHED. *Perfect Harmony* with John 3:16.
Says you.
You accept John 3:16 ONLY AFTER you erroneously try to "shoe horn" baptism "into" believes in Him.
I'm not surprised that you would resort to such faulty human logic which does not prove your point about John 3:16. Most "faith IN CHRIST ALONE sects" don't like to play games with works-salvationists. Proverbs 22:6 would include multiple instructions on how to train up a child. John 3:16 does not include a check list of works. The Bible is inspired by God and is not simply a novel that we come to fully understand through mere human intelligence.
You are making this out to be much more complicated than it really is. Unless you can tell me what it truly means to "believe in Him/believe the gospel" I must assume that you don't truly believe the gospel. You seem intent on choosing only verses that that fit your "watered down" works based false gospel. You must harmonize Scripture with Scripture before reaching the proper conclusion on doctrine instead of distorting and perverting passages of Scripture in an effort to "patch together" your so called gospel plan.
The gospel is the "good news" of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ (1 Corinthians 15:1-4) and is the power of God unto salvation for everyone who BELIEVES.. (Romans 1:16). That is scriptural and is not of my own making. Your gospel of salvation by "water and works" on the other hand is of your own making.
The spirit-filled Christian understands that salvation is by grace through faith, not works (Ephesians 2:8,9). The natural man does not understand...and is spiritually discerned (1 Corinthians 2:14). The gospel is hid to those who don't believe (2 Corinthians 4:3,4).
Whoever believes in Him "apart from additions or modifications" shall not perish, but have eternal life is absolutely true. "Adding" water baptism and other works to "believes in Him" is faulty reasoning no matter how you label it. You obviously don't understand what it truly means to "believe in Him/believe the gospel."
I really do not want to butt into this conversation with Angela. Angela has a stronger background in the Greek than I and is very capable in the language. She is more than able to defend her own posts and does not need any help from me. I would however respond to this one point. It is not a matter of any possible differences between 'because' and 'because of.' The use of either violates the rule of grammar that was explained to you. Do not attempt to play semantics here. That simply is not going to go unchallenged.
Last edited:
James 2:19
King James Bible
Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
King James Bible
Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
Amen! 
In Acts 10:43 we read ..whoever believes in Him receives remission of sins. These Gentiles received the gift of the Holy Spirit - Acts 10:45 - (compare with Acts 2:38 - the gift of the Holy Spirit) when they believed on the Lord Jesus Christ - Acts 11:17 - (compare with Acts 16:31 - Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved) BEFORE water baptism - Acts 10:47 - this is referred to as repentance unto life - Acts 11:18.
*So the only logical conclusion when properly harmonizing Scripture with Scripture is that faith in Jesus Christ "implied in genuine repentance" (rather than water baptism) brings the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31; 26:18). *Perfect Harmony*
In Acts 10:43 we read ..whoever believes in Him receives remission of sins. These Gentiles received the gift of the Holy Spirit - Acts 10:45 - (compare with Acts 2:38 - the gift of the Holy Spirit) when they believed on the Lord Jesus Christ - Acts 11:17 - (compare with Acts 16:31 - Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved) BEFORE water baptism - Acts 10:47 - this is referred to as repentance unto life - Acts 11:18. *So the only logical conclusion when properly harmonizing Scripture with Scripture is that faith in Jesus Christ "implied in genuine repentance" (rather than water baptism) brings the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31; 26:18). *Perfect Harmony*
The word "believe" can describe "mere mental assent belief," as in James 2:19, or also include "trust and reliance" in Christ for salvation, as in Acts 16:31. In James 2:19, nobody is questioning the fact that the demons believe "mental assent" that "there is one God" but they do not believe/entrust their spiritual well being to Christ; have faith/reliance upon Christ for salvation. *In other words, they do not believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and are not saved. Their trust and reliance is in Satan, as demonstrated by their rebellion in heaven and continuous evil works. Saving belief/faith is more than just an "intellectual acknowledgment" to the existence and historical facts about Christ. Saving belief/faith trusts exclusively in Christ's finished work of redemption as the ALL-sufficient means of our salvation.
It doesn't matter when you get the Holy Spirit- before or after baptism- the Holy Spirit alone does not save anyone. (And some have lost the Holy Spirit). BUT it is baptism that saves you. Let's take an example from the Old Testament first...
They had to have their high priest sacrifice a physically perfect lamb. But the Bible says the blood of animals never washed away sins. If it could, why would God sacrifice His precious Son? Only one thing washes away sin- Christ's blood (not the Holy Spirit). But Jesus had not been sacrificed in their lifetime, therefore they couldn't get baptized into His death (Romans 6:3), so how were they saved?
Jesus died once for all- all in the past and all in the future, who did what? Who obeyed God in their lifetime,
in accordance to the covenant that they lived under. So people in the Old Testament had the Holy Spirit BUT their sins were not washed away- their sins were just postponed until the cross. Still, it's that they obeyed and received grace (eventually). Their obedience did not earn grace (which is Christ's blood), but the obedient are the group of people God chooses to give it to, because they are trying but can't earn it no matter how much they try.
So they couldn't obey the gospel of Christ (be baptized into Christ's death) because He hadn't died yet. So what about those who receive the Holy Spirit after Christ's death and before baptism? Does that mean they are saved? No! What two things saved those in the Old Testament? The Holy Spirit AND obedience to God- because the obedient are the ones He gives the gift of grace to.
We also need both to be saved- both the Holy Spirit AND obedience to God- because the obedient are the ones who get the gift of grace. So what is it that God wants us to obey under the new covenant? Well you know how the Ten Commandments were only the tip of the iceburb of things to obey under the Old Covenant? Well baptism is only the start of what we must obey in the New Testament.
Remember, we need not only the Holy Spirit, but obedience to God. The Bible says, to those under the new covenant, "With flames of fire (hell) He will take vengeance on those who know not God (Holy Spirit), and who obey not the gospel of His Son (baptism)."
When we get baptized we die to our old sinful self, are buried in the watery grave of baptism, and rise to newness of life. By copying Christ's death, burial, and resurrection, we will be saved if we also remain faithful till the end. We are baptized into Christ's death- which is how we get into Christ and come in contact with His life saving blood (Romans 6). And we stay in contact with that blood by taking the Lord's Supper upon the first day of the week (Sunday).
Jesus said you must be born of water (water baptism 1Peter 3:21) AND the Spirit. If I say you need two things in order to live- both to breathe and to eat, can you live if you only have one? No, you need both in order to live. Therefore unless someone has the Holy Spirit AND baptism, they do not have life. Jesus said "I tell you the truth, unless you eat of the flesh of the Son of Man (spiritually, Lord's Supper) and drink His blood, you have no life in you."
King Saul had the Holy Spirit, but the Spirit of God left him why? Because he did not obey God. If Cornelius had the Holy Spirit, but did not obey God in baptism, the Holy Spirit would leave him, but he's not saved until he obeys the gospel anyways. Therefore Cornelius was not saved before baptism, even though he already had the Holy Spirit.
They had to have their high priest sacrifice a physically perfect lamb. But the Bible says the blood of animals never washed away sins. If it could, why would God sacrifice His precious Son? Only one thing washes away sin- Christ's blood (not the Holy Spirit). But Jesus had not been sacrificed in their lifetime, therefore they couldn't get baptized into His death (Romans 6:3), so how were they saved?
Jesus died once for all- all in the past and all in the future, who did what? Who obeyed God in their lifetime,
in accordance to the covenant that they lived under. So people in the Old Testament had the Holy Spirit BUT their sins were not washed away- their sins were just postponed until the cross. Still, it's that they obeyed and received grace (eventually). Their obedience did not earn grace (which is Christ's blood), but the obedient are the group of people God chooses to give it to, because they are trying but can't earn it no matter how much they try.
So they couldn't obey the gospel of Christ (be baptized into Christ's death) because He hadn't died yet. So what about those who receive the Holy Spirit after Christ's death and before baptism? Does that mean they are saved? No! What two things saved those in the Old Testament? The Holy Spirit AND obedience to God- because the obedient are the ones He gives the gift of grace to.
We also need both to be saved- both the Holy Spirit AND obedience to God- because the obedient are the ones who get the gift of grace. So what is it that God wants us to obey under the new covenant? Well you know how the Ten Commandments were only the tip of the iceburb of things to obey under the Old Covenant? Well baptism is only the start of what we must obey in the New Testament.
Remember, we need not only the Holy Spirit, but obedience to God. The Bible says, to those under the new covenant, "With flames of fire (hell) He will take vengeance on those who know not God (Holy Spirit), and who obey not the gospel of His Son (baptism)."
When we get baptized we die to our old sinful self, are buried in the watery grave of baptism, and rise to newness of life. By copying Christ's death, burial, and resurrection, we will be saved if we also remain faithful till the end. We are baptized into Christ's death- which is how we get into Christ and come in contact with His life saving blood (Romans 6). And we stay in contact with that blood by taking the Lord's Supper upon the first day of the week (Sunday).
Jesus said you must be born of water (water baptism 1Peter 3:21) AND the Spirit. If I say you need two things in order to live- both to breathe and to eat, can you live if you only have one? No, you need both in order to live. Therefore unless someone has the Holy Spirit AND baptism, they do not have life. Jesus said "I tell you the truth, unless you eat of the flesh of the Son of Man (spiritually, Lord's Supper) and drink His blood, you have no life in you."
King Saul had the Holy Spirit, but the Spirit of God left him why? Because he did not obey God. If Cornelius had the Holy Spirit, but did not obey God in baptism, the Holy Spirit would leave him, but he's not saved until he obeys the gospel anyways. Therefore Cornelius was not saved before baptism, even though he already had the Holy Spirit.
Christ alone and His work saves us - not water baptism.
That is an anti-the gospel belief system. We are baptized into Christ ( in His body ) when we believe - that is the baptism that saves in relation to Christ's work on the cross and resurrection. That we died with Christ on the cross and rose to newness of life in Him.
Romans 6:3 (NASB)
[SUP]3 [/SUP] Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?
1 Corinthians 12:13 (KJV)
[SUP]13 [/SUP] For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
Water baptism is merely a representation of something that already occurred when we believed the message of Christ as can be seen in Cornelius and his household coming to belief in Christ.
If we don't receive the remission of sins until we are dunked in water ( of which is not shown in Cornelius ) then those people that come to the Lord before they die and don't get water baptized would be still in their sins. It's an anti-Christ belief system and it is not the gospel.
In saying that - I encourage all believers to get water baptized.
It is a great blessing from the Lord as it appeals to a good conscience concerning the truth that all our sins are forgiven and that we have a new life now in Christ.
That is an anti-the gospel belief system. We are baptized into Christ ( in His body ) when we believe - that is the baptism that saves in relation to Christ's work on the cross and resurrection. That we died with Christ on the cross and rose to newness of life in Him.
Romans 6:3 (NASB)
[SUP]3 [/SUP] Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?
1 Corinthians 12:13 (KJV)
[SUP]13 [/SUP] For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
Water baptism is merely a representation of something that already occurred when we believed the message of Christ as can be seen in Cornelius and his household coming to belief in Christ.
If we don't receive the remission of sins until we are dunked in water ( of which is not shown in Cornelius ) then those people that come to the Lord before they die and don't get water baptized would be still in their sins. It's an anti-Christ belief system and it is not the gospel.
In saying that - I encourage all believers to get water baptized.
It is a great blessing from the Lord as it appeals to a good conscience concerning the truth that all our sins are forgiven and that we have a new life now in Christ.
If you were dying, and I had a pill that would save your life, how could you be saved by it unless you swallowed it? It being in existence is not enough unless you come in contact with it. You are right, Christ's blood is what saves us, but baptism saves us by putting us in contact with it. God is not a liar- "baptism doth also now save you." Like you said, we are baptized into Christ's death- this is how we get in Christ and come in contact with His blood.
What saves us is this:
Ephesians 2:8 (NASB)
[SUP]8 [/SUP] For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
Acts 16:30-31 (NASB)
[SUP]30 [/SUP] and after he brought them out, he said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"
[SUP]31 [/SUP] They said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."
1 John 3:23 (NASB)
[SUP]23 [/SUP] This is His commandment, that we believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, just as He commanded us.
Physical water baptism no more saves anyone then Daffy Duck and Donald Duck are the 2 witnesses in the book of Revelation.
Thank God for water baptism as it does appeal to a good conscience that Jesus' blood has washed all out sins away through His grace by faith in Him alone.
The causal use of εἰς is found in Mt 12:41 and Lk 11:32. Whether it is translated as ‘at’ or as ‘because of,” these translations express cause. The preaching of Jonah caused the Ninevites to repent.
41. The people of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at the proclamation of Jonah, and see, something greater than Jonah is here! (NRSV)
Luke 11:32. The people of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at the proclamation of Jonah, and see, something greater than Jonah is here! (NRSV)
Merriam-Webster’s flagship unabridged dictionary, Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of the English Language, gives us the usages of the preposition ‘at.’ One of these usages is the one found in Mt 12:41b and Lk 11:32b, “5 — used as a function word to express means, agency, cause, source, or manner.”
Neither of these statement are true.
The causal use of εἰς is widely recognized in the very best Greek grammars, including the four volume work, A Grammar of New Testament Greek. In the third volume, entitled Syntax, Nigel Turner discusses on pages 266-267 the causal sense of εἰς and writes, “Some contexts would certainly suit a causal sense.”
41. The people of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at the proclamation of Jonah, and see, something greater than Jonah is here! (NRSV)
Luke 11:32. The people of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at the proclamation of Jonah, and see, something greater than Jonah is here! (NRSV)
Merriam-Webster’s flagship unabridged dictionary, Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of the English Language, gives us the usages of the preposition ‘at.’ One of these usages is the one found in Mt 12:41b and Lk 11:32b, “5 — used as a function word to express means, agency, cause, source, or manner.”
Neither of these statement are true.
The causal use of εἰς is widely recognized in the very best Greek grammars, including the four volume work, A Grammar of New Testament Greek. In the third volume, entitled Syntax, Nigel Turner discusses on pages 266-267 the causal sense of εἰς and writes, “Some contexts would certainly suit a causal sense.”