FOR or BECAUSE OF the forgiveness of your sins, (Acts 2:38)

[BillyBob65]

Did not Jesus ALWAYS state that they believed in him, had faith in Him, that was what counted, not water baptism? And what mode of Baptism counts, is it immersed, dipped, sprinkled? is it in the name of Jesus Only?

Yes Jesus did say that they that believed in him but his ideal of that and your ideal of is not the same. Jesus never divorced the baptism from faith that is what man has done.Jesus clearly teaches what baptism is the one baptism in many passages that are not defined by man the way Jesus has defined them. Too much bias is in play to really get the true picture of Jesus teaching on baptism. WE have gone over and over on this and no eyes have been open and most likely never will. Jesus never ever said your faith alone will save you. He said he that keeps my words is he that believes. He who is a doer of the words not a hearer only. He who obeys my words.

 

[BillyBob65]

Here you simply changed the subject of the debate. I never claimed it wasn't the same baptism. And you failed to address the fact that you are imposing the context of Acts 2 and your interpretation into the context of chapter 10. If you think that I don't notice these things, and that no one else does, you are mistaken there too. You aren't dealing with your own mishandling. You just avoid dealing with it. Hoping it will go away??

The only things that were deleted (ediited) as far as I know were violations of rules 2.1 and 2.2 which deal how we treat one another here. So try and say it without insulting people or changing the subject. Here, I will give you a chance to do so. This is the content you said was false and why.


Do it without attacking the person or accusing them of not believing scripture because they disagree with you. Address the issues posed. I have no idea what was deleted but I know that no mod here deletes something just because they disagree with what was said. You are not being censored. How do you explain the fact that the only things that are edited (and I have marked them many times without deleting them and told you they were marked for rules violations so you could see what is considered a rule violation so don't be blaming the messenger) are derogatory remarks about the person or their ability to understand scripture or that they don't believe scripture? Everything else is still standing. That whole post above is off topic and only about persons. So, no more of that. I have posted a lot of material in rebuttal to your rebuttal, broken into several posts and I still have more to go, and I can't see that you have addresses any of it, just complained about being censored.

You posted "checkmate" while I was still working on my first response, but there was no checkmate.

Here you simply changed the subject of the debate. I never claimed it wasn't the same baptism. And you failed to address the fact that you are imposing the context of Acts 2 and your interpretation into the context of chapter 10. If you think that I don't notice these things, and that no one else does, you are mistaken there too. You aren't dealing with your own mishandling. You just avoid dealing with it. Hoping it will go away??

You said " you failed to address the fact that you are imposing the context of Acts 2 and your interpretation into the context of chapter 10. "I really do not understand what you are trying to say here. Just how do you see this happening? What am I missing from your thinking?



Acts 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house

Here you used the scripture above to try to show me that the bible says that\ belief is all that was required to be saved. With cutting this scripture out of the context that it was in would seem to be true but the rest of the scripture following in context would make it clear that baptism was taught as part of that belief just as it was in Acts 2 . See the following verses where they taught them what to believe. Being they spoke the word of the Lord and they were baptized the same hour of the night is clear they heard and responded to the same gospel as those in Acts two.

32 And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.
33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.

Many people use Acts 16:30,31 to disprove that baptism is part of the faith that saves. They always leave out the rest of what is taught there because it does not support their belief. That does not nullify what is really being said and is a mishandling of the word.

Context does matter it does no prove anything if it is not in the true context in which it is found. Just because I find a verse that says Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved does not make it stand alone and mean that is all in this case if I would have finished reading it would have said they were given the words in which to believe and is apparent that baptism was in those words. Context does matter Yes the full context not just the part we wan to us for our bias.

 

[BillyBob65]

Not sure, but it appears you have confused @JesusFan with @BillyBob65 here. I read him to be opposing your opposition. He seems to me to agree with you.

His argument refers to those things which, though tangential to the discussion, are what the text is about, as over against what BillyBob claims. He asks BillyBob to explain the particulars of what he thinks the text is about, to demonstrate the impossible nature of his claim.

But I haven't read all he has said. Maybe I'm wrong.

Just what do you see as " the impossible nature of his claim."

 

[Arial]

You said " you failed to address the fact that you are imposing the context of Acts 2 and your interpretation into the context of chapter 10. "I really do not understand what you are trying to say here. Just how do you see this happening? What am I missing from your thinking?

Post #148

How can Acts 10:47.48 be a direct reference to Acts 2:38 when the people in chapter 10 are in a whole different place and did not hear what Peter said in Acts 2? Cornelius had not even heard the gospel. The implication in the text is that he was a Jewish convert and worshiped the God of Israel.

"Scripture interprets scripture" does not mean randomly applying one scripture to another random scripture and coming up with an interpretation that does not fit into the context where it is being forced into. You have forced your interpretation of Acts 2:38 into Acts 10:47,48 when there is no contextual connection between the two. IOW you have interpret Acts 10 through Acts 2 instead of through its own narrative statements. That is context override.

Acts 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house

Here you used the scripture above to try to show me that the bible says that\ belief is all that was required to be saved. With cutting this scripture out of the context that it was in would seem to be true but the rest of the scripture following in context would make it clear that baptism was taught as part of that belief just as it was in Acts 2 . See the following verses where they taught them what to believe. Being they spoke the word of the Lord and they were baptized the same hour of the night is clear they heard and responded to the same gospel as those in Acts two.

I have never said that baptism was not taught. What we are debating is your claim that one receives remission of sin and the indwelling Spirit in baptism. Have you forgotten that that has been your premise from the OP on? Do you wish to retract that claim?

Many people use Acts 16:30,31 to disprove that baptism is part of the faith that saves. They always leave out the rest of what is taught there because it does not support their belief. That does not nullify what is really being said and is a mishandling of the word.

The point of bringing out those scriptures is to show that remission of sins---salvation---came before baptism not because of or during baptism.

Context does matter it does no prove anything if it is not in the true context in which it is found. Just because I find a verse that says Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved does not make it stand alone and mean that is all in this case if I would have finished reading it would have said they were given the words in which to believe and is apparent that baptism was in those words. Context does matter Yes the full context not just the part we wan to us for our bias.

what context of what scripture are you referring. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved can stand alone. Nothing in the context would be adding something to it FOR salvation---remission of sin and the indwelling Spirit. Even if "baptisms" is somewhere in the text after that statement it is a command, something the believer should do as having come into the covenant community. But it adds nothing to one's salvation. There are plenty of commands that believers don't always follow and it does not take away from their salvation, and doing them does not add to it.

 

[makesends]

Just what do you see as " the impossible nature of his claim."

FWIW I didn't say that your claim was impossible, but that @JesusFan had mentioned some particulars to demonstrate the impossibility of your claim. That is, if your claim was correct, how do you fashion the necessary particular? The implication is that they are not dealt with in the text, though your claim is that (through your thesis) at least one of those particulars should apply. After all, to his credit, you don't seem to have decided one way or the other what form that baptism takes, other than water. In other words, according to him, your claim lacks merit for lack of substance.

 

[Arial]

Not sure, but it appears you have confused @JesusFan with @BillyBob65 here. I read him to be opposing your opposition. He seems to me to agree with you.

His argument refers to those things which, though tangential to the discussion, are what the text is about, as over against what BillyBob claims. He asks BillyBob to explain the particulars of what he thinks the text is about, to demonstrate the impossible nature of his claim.

But I haven't read all he has said. Maybe I'm wrong.

You are right. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I deleted my post.

 

[Arial]

By only posting part of a scripture out of context is not the way we study the bible. every aspect of the plan of salvation does not have to be repeated every time. If God said anything one time that should be enough for we are to trust Gods word he should not have to keep repeating himself and to say otherwise is just reflecting from the truth to hold onto our bias and we all know that to be true.

From post #150

Here is an eye opener. The people the apostles were writing to and Luke in Acts, did not have the NT. There would always be those and even maybe most, who had never seen or heard what we have in our canon as Acts. So, if a person's sins were not remitted and the Spirit did not indwell unless a person was baptized in water, that would be the most necessary of all to be said every single time.

 

[BillyBob65]

Post #148


I have never said that baptism was not taught. What we are debating is your claim that one receives remission of sin and the indwelling Spirit in baptism. Have you forgotten that that has been your premise from the OP on? Do you wish to retract that claim?

The point of bringing out those scriptures is to show that remission of sins---salvation---came before baptism not because of or during baptism.

what context of what scripture are you referring. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved can stand alone. Nothing in the context would be adding something to it FOR salvation---remission of sin and the indwelling Spirit. Even if "baptisms" is somewhere in the text after that statement it is a command, something the believer should do as having come into the covenant community. But it adds nothing to one's salvation. There are plenty of commands that believers don't always follow and it does not take away from their salvation, and doing them does not add to it.

How can Acts 10:47.48 be a direct reference to Acts 2:38 when the people in chapter 10 are in a whole different place and did not hear what Peter said in Acts 2? Cornelius had not even heard the gospel. The implication in the text is that he was a Jewish convert and worshiped the God of Israel.

"Scripture interprets scripture" does not mean randomly applying one scripture to another random scripture and coming up with an interpretation that does not fit into the context where it is being forced into. You have forced your interpretation of Acts 2:38 into Acts 10:47,48 when there is no contextual connection between the two. IOW you have interpret Acts 10 through Acts 2 instead of through its own narrative statements. That is context override

The way Acts 10:48 is a direct reference to Acts 2:38 is because it is talking a out the same baptism. The gospel was first preached on Pentecost the day Peter opened the door to the kingdom ( the church) and told them how to respond to the gospel. He said that the baptism in Christ name was for remission of sin and to give the indwelling spirit that was promised to all see verse 39.

Now God calls Peter to go to Cornelius and preach the same gospel to him and Peter does. Peter starts preaching the same gospel to him that is taught to every one from the day of Pentecost forward. The spirit comes upon the gentiles not as an indwelling but as the power for witness as the scriptures try to point out if one follows the scriptures they would see the difference. The whole chapter is about God convincing Peter it is his will. The power of witness is not the indwelling for the indwelling does not come with the sighs of power for witness. The only time we see this happen is here and in Acts 2 never again is it recorded as coming on anyone in this manner again. The power is then transferred by the laying on of the Apostles hands only to those they chose to give it to. It was never promised to all. The indwelling spirit is the promise of Acts 2:38,39 and it produces fruit (Gal. 5:22 / Eph. 5:9 )not the power of witness. It is to help and comfort the saints in their walk in the light. It is for a seal until we reach heaven it is permanent the power is not if was for a season and only select few had it.

Now in Acts 10:47,48 it is clear that Peter is talking about the baptism in Acts 2:38 for he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord . That is the baptism of Acts 2:38 there is no other baptism in the Lords name than that of Acts 2:38 and if anyone says different that is a tale tale sign they are not up to par on what the bible teaches.

No I haven't forgotten that the baptism in the name of Jesus Christ is for the remission of sin and the giving of the spirit I have spent endless effort to show where scripture say that and it is rejected as oh that can't be what it means and then some post half stricture contexts that they think discredit the teaching of baptism for the remission of sin and the giving of the spirit and when I follow them down the rabbit trail they get lost and can't follow the scriptures that clarify the teaching for them.

what context of what scripture are you referring. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved can stand alone. Nothing in the context would be adding something to it FOR salvation---remission of sin and the indwelling Spirit. Even if "baptisms" is somewhere in the text after that statement it is a command, something the believer should do as having come into the covenant community. But it adds nothing to one's salvation. There are plenty of commands that believers don't always follow and it does not take away from their salvation, and doing them does not add to it.

This is faulty reasoning as faulty as can be.It is clear in those verses when left in context it is saying believe the gospel and submit to its call. It is when we start talking like the quote above we leave the teaching from scripture and start with our own teaching of what was said.
The scripture context is clear that they are to believe the gospel and respond in the manner that was reveled in other text that dealt with the same subject. If we have to only take part and make it stand alone we have already failed at rightly handling the word. That is common sense. Do we need to study how to rightly handle the scriptures? I thought if we are going to try to teach from them we would already know how to rightly handle them.

 

[Arial]

The way Acts 10:48 is a direct reference to Acts 2:38 is because it is talking a out the same baptism.

Of course it is talking about the same baptism. There is only one Christian baptism. But as I will say for the third time you are importing your interpretation of that baptismal statement in Acts 2:38 into Acts 10. And you continue to do so in all other scriptures whether they mention baptism or not. In spite of the fact of all the scriptural evidence that is contrary to your interpretation. In spite of the fact that your interpretation takes away what belongs to Christ and his work on the cross and give it instead to the water.

In spite of the fact of the evidence given of how Acts 2:38 and the one in Acts 22 of the grammatical structure of the original language provides the correct way to read and hear that scripture. As if none of those matters. You simply dismiss the source. That is bad hermeneutics. The one I gave you of Acts 22 from ChatGPT you not only challenged my motives and way of study, announcing why I have such a problem rightly handling the word of God, but you also set yourself above all sources of information. So just for the record, Chat does not just make stuff up. It gave its own source as NA/UBS. What is that you ask? They are the two standard critical Greek NT editions used by scholars used by scholars and translators.

Why this matters for Acts 2:38​

When someone says “Acts 2:38 in the NA/UBS text reads…”, they are saying:

“This is the wording supported by the best and earliest manuscript evidence, not a denominational translation.”

It strengthens grammatical arguments because:

• The Greek text is not in dispute
• The debate becomes about syntax and meaning, not textual variants

 

[Arial]

Now God calls Peter to go to Cornelius and preach the same gospel to him and Peter does. Peter starts preaching the same gospel to him that is taught to every one from the day of Pentecost forward. The spirit comes upon the gentiles not as an indwelling but as the power for witness as the scriptures try to point out if one follows the scriptures they would see the difference. The whole chapter is about God convincing Peter it is his will. The power of witness is not the indwelling for the indwelling does not come with the sighs of power for witness. The only time we see this happen is here and in Acts 2 never again is it recorded as coming on anyone in this manner again. The power is then transferred by the laying on of the Apostles hands only to those they chose to give it to. It was never promised to all. The indwelling spirit is the promise of Acts 2:38,39 and it produces fruit (Gal. 5:22 / Eph. 5:9 )not the power of witness. It is to help and comfort the saints in their walk in the light. It is for a seal until we reach heaven it is permanent the power is not if was for a season and only select few had it.

Do you think a book report on Acts 10 will change anything?

The last time you tried to do that you said the Spirit coming upon the Gentiles or Jews was to perform miracles. Now it is for the power of witness. And just saying something is in the scripture does not mean that it is there and it is not there. There is not even any evidence that Corneilius did go out and witness.

Also the whole chapter is not about convincing Peter that it (whatever it is) his will. It is about the gospel being for all people and nations, not just the Jews. Then you say the indwelling is not for the power of indwelling. You reason that to be the case because you presume without any evidence within the scripture itself that the power to witness comes with the sign of speaking in tongues. Then you presume without evidence to say that the power to witness only comes with the laying on of hand by an apostle. And yet Scripture tells us that we are all ambassadors of Christ with the mission of preaching reconciliation.

The indwelling Spirit does many things, starting with regenerating a person and applying the work of Christ to them. A person is indwelt by the Spirit at the new birth. Not when they are dunked in the water. That is a visible profession and confession of the gospel.

No I haven't forgotten that the baptism in the name of Jesus Christ is for the remission of sin and the giving of the spirit I have spent endless effort to show where scripture say that and it is rejected as oh that can't be what it means and then some post half stricture contexts that they think discredit the teaching of baptism for the remission of sin and the giving of the spirit and when I follow them down the rabbit trail they get lost and can't follow the scriptures that clarify the teaching for them.

I suppose it is about time I get straightened out and realize that you can't possibly be wrong and follow like a blind sheep. Well, that won't happen. You can be wrong, and you are wrong when you say a believer's sin remains condemning them and they are bereft and without the Spirit, until and unless they are baptized in the water that does what Christ did not do. That their faith is empty and useless until plain ole water, whether it comes out of a tap or sits in a river, a lake, an algae infested pond where snapping turtles live and snakes skate across the surface, washes all their sins away and sucks the Spirit into them.

 

[Arial]

This is faulty reasoning as faulty as can be.It is clear in those verses when left in context it is saying believe the gospel and submit to its call. It is when we start talking like the quote above we leave the teaching from scripture and start with our own teaching of what was said.

Even though it has been shown to you from Scripture itself, over and over and over, that your entire premise is a gospel that is entirely dependent on water baptism for any of the work of Christ to be of any personal value or effect. Everything you present is enveloped into that premise, as though that were how to correctly handle the word of God, as though that was the supreme exegetical tool for interpretation; even though that has been proven to you repeatedly, you still say it is us and not you who are leaving the teaching from scripture and start with our own teaching. It would be amusing if it were not so sad.

The scripture context is clear that they are to believe the gospel and respond in the manner that was reveled in other text that dealt with the same subject.

How about all the places the gospel is preached in the NT that does not include baptism as part of that gospel. Baptism is not the gospel, and it is not a part of the gospel. The gospel is: Jesus is God the Son who came as one of us to substitute himself in our place; to pay the ransom needed to set the captives free; to satisfy the just wrath of a just God against sin and the sinner; to make it possible for God to justify them and impute to them the righteousness of the One who laid down his life for them. The gospel is "By grace you are saved, through faith; and this is not of yourselves it is the gift of God that no can boast." The gospel is about the forgiveness of sin through Christ and the promised indwelling of the Holy Spirit to keep and carry you and the promise of our future resurrection. Baptism is not part of the gospel. It is an ordinance of Christ's church.

I am done.

 

[BillyBob65]

Even though it has been shown to you from Scripture itself, over and over and over, that your entire premise is a gospel that is entirely dependent on water baptism for any of the work of Christ to be of any personal value or effect. Everything you present is enveloped into that premise, as though that were how to correctly handle the word of God, as though that was the supreme exegetical tool for interpretation; even though that has been proven to you repeatedly, you still say it is us and not you who are leaving the teaching from scripture and start with our own teaching. It would be amusing if it were not so sad.

How about all the places the gospel is preached in the NT that does not include baptism as part of that gospel. Baptism is not the gospel, and it is not a part of the gospel. The gospel is: Jesus is God the Son who came as one of us to substitute himself in our place; to pay the ransom needed to set the captives free; to satisfy the just wrath of a just God against sin and the sinner; to make it possible for God to justify them and impute to them the righteousness of the One who laid down his life for them. The gospel is "By grace you are saved, through faith; and this is not of yourselves it is the gift of God that no can boast." The gospel is about the forgiveness of sin through Christ and the promised indwelling of the Holy Spirit to keep and carry you and the promise of our future resurrection. Baptism is not part of the gospel. It is an ordinance of Christ's church.

I am done.

That's good because you are so quick to defend that you are not correctly reading and answering properly anyway and it is getting old. I had a response to your posts but it got lost and I do not feel the need to respond after seeing many remarks from you that was not appropriate. MOD EDIT: Rule 2.2 violation. Addressing the poster and not the post, off topic.