UPC doctrinal contradiction

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by ouden katakrim

(the calvinist in me cringes.)

oduen

?

[TheLegalist]

Originally Posted by pelathais

? Bruce Metzger is dead. A great writer, but dead. Your source is apparently dated. He appears to agree with my earlier assessment that it means "both", at any rate.

The Gingrich and Arndt discussion doesn't even apply.

Farstadt uses poor grammar to make the same grammatical point as Metzger.

Werner also agrees with Metzger (and NOT your point TL).

Newman and Nida appear to agree with certain conditions to your view, after first admitting that it could actually go either way.



"Plainly!?!" HAH!

The majority of the sources you cited don't even "plainly" agree with your conclusion, and the one that does equivocates with honesty and candor.

So what was "Padfield's" point here, TL? He doesn't even appear to have read the stuff he cut and pasted before you cut and pasted this. You have to actually read this stuff before posting it if you want to make a point.

I am just showing someone elses opinion Pel... Just showing the context of the author said and how he presented it and sources.

So says you on the grammer. What does dead have to do with anything. The context clearly puts repentance and baptism TOGETHOR! Baptism is clearly seen MANY times in the NT as having relationship to removal of sin. This is not a isolate verse in the meaning and purpose of baptism. Jesus places repentance before coming to the alter and giving offering which fits the pattern and model of Acts 2:38 and relation of death/sacrifice of Romans 6 and others.

[Timmy]

Originally Posted by pelathais

?

Yeah, you'd think the Calvinist in Ouden would just let God pull the trigger for whomever He pleases. Why cringe?

[TheLegalist]

http://members.cox.net/theoutlet/Ree...cts%202.38.pdf

it takes me a while to locate source as I usually just save the file vs the site. Here is more on the subject.

Padfield is located here...

http://www.padfield.com/acrobat/hand...on-of-sins.pdf

he also has several debates etc...

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by TheLegalist

I am just showing someone elses opinion Pel... Just showing the context of the author said and how he presented it and sources.

So says you on the grammer. What does dead have to do with anything. The context clearly puts repentance and baptism TOGETHOR! Baptism is clearly seen MANY times in the NT as having relationship to removal of sin. This is not a isolate verse in the meaning and purpose of baptism. Jesus places repentance before coming to the alter and giving offering which fits the pattern and model of Acts 2:38 and relation of death/sacrifice of Romans 6 and others.

"Dead" merely indicates that you are using dated material. I have many of Prof. Metzger's books and keep them as treasures.

And, "So says me" on the grammar? Read Farstad's "sentence:" "Since the expression 'eis aphesin hamartion' is a prepositional phrase with no verbal endings or singular or plural endings." ...? Yes, go on...

"repentance and baptism TOGETHOR!" is just the point. The grammar blurs the distinction between "baptism" and "Repent" in Acts 2:38. It's so blurred that we honestly can't "CLEARLY" tell if the prepositional phrase "for the remission of sins" is telling us "BE BAPTIZED BECAUSE of repentance..." or "BE BAPTIZED IN ORDER TO RECEIVE forgiveness."

It's a blur, and THAT's what Padfield's sources tell us.

You go on to make assertions here - put you offer no proof. You say:

"Baptism is clearly seen MANY times in the NT as having relationship to removal of sin."

Okay. "Two" is "a couple." "Three" is a "few." And four? How about you give me four NT examples of the above assertion? Four would be a minimum to prove your case.

"Jesus places repentance before coming to the alter [SIC] and giving offering which fits the pattern and model of Acts 2:38 and relation of death/sacrifice of Romans 6 and others."

Matthew 5:20-25, (at least that's what I think you're referring to here) is NOT referring to a sin offering. Even the "innocent" party is commanded here to "go to thy brother and be reconciled" (See especially Matthew 5:23-24).

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by TheLegalist

http://members.cox.net/theoutlet/Ree...cts%202.38.pdf

it takes me a while to locate source as I usually just save the file vs the site. Here is more on the subject.

Padfield is located here...

http://www.padfield.com/acrobat/hand...on-of-sins.pdf

he also has several debates etc...

That's nice. (No, really. It's nice). But how about if we just focus first on you reading your previous post citing Metzger, Gingrich & Arndt and the others? You do see how that none of these sources cited by our Campbellite friend, Mr. Padfield, supports his summation at the end, don't you?

To acknowledge the "blur" the way they do, and say that "for" (Greek "eis") could refer to either "baptism" or "repentance" is NOT to say that this "CLEARLY" refers to "baptism" alone as your creed wants to make it out to be.

Metzger, et al. are clearly saying that this one is NOT so clear. It really could go either way. That's why we need to look at more Scripture here... like your "Four examples" where the NT "CLEARLY" states that "baptism washes away sin" as per the Roman Catholic and your Campbellite teachings.

[Sam]

This is how Acts 2:38 is interpreted by some Apostolic Pentecostals

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Sam

This is how Acts 2:38 is interpreted by some Apostolic Pentecostals

Yes. And the events in Joppa with the household of Cornelius bear this one out.

According to the "Three Stepper" reading of Acts 2:38, you must have your sins remitted THROUGH WATER BAPTISM and then you will receive the Holy Ghost.

Peter (the same Peter who preached in Acts 2) says later in Joppa:

"To him (Jesus) give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word." Acts 10:43-44.

The people of Cornelius' household heard the word; and by "hearing" we mean "understanding." They understood the Gospel message - "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved!" Acts 15:11, Acts 16:31; Romans 10:9-11.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Yes. And the events in Joppa with the household of Cornelius bear this one out.

According to the "Three Stepper" reading of Acts 2:38, you must have your sins remitted THROUGH WATER BAPTISM and then you will receive the Holy Ghost.

Peter (the same Peter who preached in Acts 2) says later in Joppa:

"To him (Jesus) give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word." Acts 10:43-44.

The people of Cornelius' household heard the word; and by "hearing" we mean "understanding." They understood the Gospel message - "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved!" Acts 15:11, Acts 16:31; Romans 10:9-11.

What a great post!

"CLEARLY!" Clearly justification and the forgiveness of sins comes by faith to those who believe and call upon the Lord Jesus Christ.

Psalm 50:15, Psalm 86:5, Psalm 145:18; Jeremiah 33:3; Joel 2:32; Luke 11:9-10; John 4:10; Acts 2:21; Romans 10:11-14; 1 Corinthians 1:2 and Hebrews 4:16.

[ouden katakrim]

Originally Posted by Timmy

Yeah, you'd think the Calvinist in Ouden would just let God pull the trigger for whomever He pleases. Why cringe?

LOL. I don't cringe because God actually does pull the trigger... the calvinist in me cringes when folks say they're the shooter.

ouden