Doctrinal Question - Someone Please Take a Shot at This.

[TRFrance]

I was thinking recently about the Catholic doctrine of confession (to a priest), which we of course know is an unscriptural practice.

However, the Catholic church feels they have biblical justification for it. The scripture they use is (John 20:22-23):

22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: 23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.
Therefore according to this argument, Roman Catholic priests, based on the authority handed down from the apostles, have the power to remit or retain sins.

Your thoughts please... How would you respond to someone who is Catholic, and defends the practice using that particular scripture?

[freeatlast]

I was thinking recently about the Catholic doctrine of confession (to a priest), which we of course know is an unscriptural practice.

However, the Catholic church feels they have biblical justification for it. The scripture they use is (John 20:22-23):

22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: 23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.
Therefore according to this argument, Roman Catholic priests, based on the authority handed down from the apostles, have the power to remit or retain sins.

Your thoughts please... How would you respond to someone who is Catholic, and defends the practice using that particular scripture?

Hmmm interesting...I wondered when I saw that scripture if "we" also lean on that scripturte for our stance on Sins ONLY being remitted when a "man" plunges one beneaththe water and calls on the name of the Lord.

Do we make ourselves an instument of remitting someones sins. No ones sins can remitted without a "preist/preacher" doing the work fo rthem.

Just a side thought TRF....sorry, it's not an answer to your question. :star

[berkeley]

Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

[Apprehended]

Well, if you are in the Confessional and the Priest does not grant Absolution, slip him a few buck under the divide. He wll then "remit" your sins. If not, just go to another Priest. Hey, sometimes you have to shop the sin around some...but there's no problem.

[Neck]

I was thinking recently about the Catholic doctrine of confession (to a priest), which we of course know is an unscriptural practice.

However, the Catholic church feels they have biblical justification for it. The scripture they use is (John 20:22-23):

22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: 23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.
Therefore according to this argument, Roman Catholic priests, based on the authority handed down from the apostles, have the power to remit or retain sins.

Your thoughts please... How would you respond to someone who is Catholic, and defends the practice using that particular scripture?

I have always thought of this as a forgiveness passage...

[TRFrance]

Hmmm interesting...I wondered when I saw that scripture if "we" also lean on that scripture for our stance on Sins ONLY being remitted when a "man" plunges one beneath the water and calls on the name of the Lord.

Do we make ourselves an instrument of remitting someones sins. No ones sins can remitted without a "priest/preacher" doing the work for them.
Just a side thought TRF....sorry, it's not an answer to your question.
Apples and oranges sir. Apples and oranges. But I wont even bother explaining because 1/ it may not really make a difference anyway , and 2/ I'd like to stay on topic if possible.

I have always thought of this as a forgiveness passage...
I hear you. But I think a Catholic could plausibly state that it's more than a forgiveness passage, since Jesus already said we should forgive one another (up to 70x 7).

Appreciate the input though.

[Neck]

I hear you. But I think a Catholic could plausibly state that it's more than a forgiveness passage, since Jesus already said we should forgive one antother (up to 70x 7).

Appreciate the input though.

I understand the 70 x 7.

But that statement goes to human nature.

The fact is humans have a hard time with forgiveness...

[mizpeh]

Since sins are remitted at water baptism, if you refuse to baptise someone then they remain in their sins and if you baptism someone their sins are remitted.
After initial baptism, we confess our sins to God directly 1John1:7

[Praxeas]

I was thinking recently about the Catholic doctrine of confession (to a priest), which we of course know is an unscriptural practice.

However, the Catholic church feels they have biblical justification for it. The scripture they use is (John 20:22-23):
22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: 23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.
Therefore according to this argument, Roman Catholic priests, based on the authority handed down from the apostles, have the power to remit or retain sins.

Your thoughts please... How would you respond to someone who is Catholic, and defends the practice using that particular scripture?
Let..I say Let the Catholic Priest show us where in Acts this was done...

[TK Burk]

The Catholic Encyclopedia defines “Absolution” as: that act of the priest whereby, in the Sacrament of Penance, HE FREES MAN FROM SIN. It presupposes on the part of the penitent, contrition, confession, and promise at least of satisfaction; on the part of the minister, valid reception of the Order of Priesthood and jurisdiction, GRANTED BY COMPETENT AUTHORITY, OVER THE PERSON RECEIVING THE SACRAMENT. That there is in the CHURCH POWER TO ABSOLVE SINS committed after baptism the Council of Trent thus declares: "But the Lord then principally instituted the Sacrament of Penance, when, being raised from the dead, He breathed upon His disciples saying, 'Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.' By which action so signal, and words so clear the consent of all the Fathers has ever understood that THE POWER OF FORGIVING AND RETAINING SINS WAS COMMUNICATED TO THE APOSTLES, AND TO THEIR LAWFUL SUCCESSORS for the reconciling of the faithful who have fallen after baptism" (Sess. XIV, i). (UPPERCASES added for emphasis)

Where does such practice lead? Look at what the Universal Life Church does with such forgiveness power:

“The Universal Life Church through its Monastery grants full Absolution from all sin from preconception to the present date.

In addition, the Universal Life Church through its Monastery grants Plenary Indulgence which is forgiveness of the punishments for sin in this life.

The Grant of Absolution and Plenary Indulgence does forgive all sin including the punishments of sins in this life.

The Universal Life Church through its Monastery does not ask for any individual to confess any wrongs, to declare any sins or announce any misdeeds done in private.” (See quote source HERE (http://www.ulc.org/index.php?destination=absolutionOfSins))

:SIGH: Why do men always fight so against the simplicity of God’s Word?

Please consider this; Jesus told the Apostles that whatever sins they remitted would be remitted, and whatever sins they retained would be retained (See John 20:22, 23). Jesus never meant this as a promise that these men—or any men—would have power to absolve or condemn sin. This is especially true when one sees that the Bible says that only God has such power (See Mark 2:7, 10). Through the whole counsel of God’s Word what we do find is that Jesus was telling His Apostles that their word would play a key role in making His gospel promise a reality in men and women. To solidify this Jesus gave these men the keys to His kingdom (See Matt 16:13-19). A key is an instrument through which one can gain access to that which was unavailable to them. Jesus said that these apostolic keys would either bind men and keep them from accessing things here on earth and in heaven, or it would loose them to experience things here on earth and in heaven. “Bind” is to declare to be improper and unlawful; “loose” is to declare lawful. Here we see that the key is the Apostles’ Words and it functions according to how it is received by the hearer.

Now look at what Jesus prayed: “Neither pray I for these alone, BUT FOR THEM ALSO WHICH SHALL BELIEVE ON ME THROUGH THEIR WORD.” (John 17:20)

What word would they preach? Jesus answered that in verse eight and fourteen of the same chapter:

John 17:8
(8) For I HAVE GIVEN UNTO THEM THE WORDS WHICH THOU GAVEST ME; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.

John 17:14
(14) I HAVE GIVEN THEM THY WORD; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

I hope this helps.

[Evang.Benincasa]

The Catholic Encyclopedia defines “Absolution” as: that act of the priest whereby, in the Sacrament of Penance, HE FREES MAN FROM SIN. It presupposes on the part of the penitent, contrition, confession, and promise at least of satisfaction; on the part of the minister, valid reception of the Order of Priesthood and jurisdiction, GRANTED BY COMPETENT AUTHORITY, OVER THE PERSON RECEIVING THE SACRAMENT. That there is in the CHURCH POWER TO ABSOLVE SINS committed after baptism the Council of Trent thus declares: "But the Lord then principally instituted the Sacrament of Penance, when, being raised from the dead, He breathed upon His disciples saying, 'Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.' By which action so signal, and words so clear the consent of all the Fathers has ever understood that THE POWER OF FORGIVING AND RETAINING SINS WAS COMMUNICATED TO THE APOSTLES, AND TO THEIR LAWFUL SUCCESSORS for the reconciling of the faithful who have fallen after baptism" (Sess. XIV, i). (UPPERCASES added for emphasis)

Where does such practice lead? Look at what the Universal Life Church does with such forgiveness power:



:SIGH: Why do men always fight so against the simplicity of God’s Word?

Please consider this; Jesus told the Apostles that whatever sins they remitted would be remitted, and whatever sins they retained would be retained (See John 20:22, 23). Jesus never meant this as a promise that these men—or any men—would have power to absolve or condemn sin. This is especially true when one sees that the Bible says that only God has such power (See Mark 2:7, 10). Through the whole counsel of God’s Word what we do find is that Jesus was telling His Apostles that their word would play a key role in making His gospel promise a reality in men and women. To solidify this Jesus gave these men the keys to His kingdom (See Matt 16:13-19). A key is an instrument through which one can gain access to that which was unavailable to them. Jesus said that these apostolic keys would either bind men and keep them from accessing things here on earth and in heaven, or it would loose them to experience things here on earth and in heaven. “Bind” is to declare to be improper and unlawful; “loose” is to declare lawful. Here we see that the key is the Apostles’ Words and it functions according to how it is received by the hearer.

Now look at what Jesus prayed: “Neither pray I for these alone, BUT FOR THEM ALSO WHICH SHALL BELIEVE ON ME THROUGH THEIR WORD.” (John 17:20)

What word would they preach? Jesus answered that in verse eight of the same chapter:

John 17:8
(8) For I HAVE GIVEN UNTO THEM THE WORDS WHICH THOU GAVEST ME; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.

John 17:14
(14) I HAVE GIVEN THEM THY WORD; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

I hope this helps.

Brother thank you for such great truth.

In Jesus Name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

[Steve Epley]

The Apostles had power to remit sins it was practiced by baptizing the penitent in Jesus Name that power is vested in the ministry today.

[Aquila]

I was thinking recently about the Catholic doctrine of confession (to a priest), which we of course know is an unscriptural practice.

However, the Catholic church feels they have biblical justification for it. The scripture they use is (John 20:22-23):

22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: 23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.
Therefore according to this argument, Roman Catholic priests, based on the authority handed down from the apostles, have the power to remit or retain sins.

Your thoughts please... How would you respond to someone who is Catholic, and defends the practice using that particular scripture?

I believe it has more to do with church discipline. The soon to be apostles were granted authority to lay the sins of those who rebelled against the gospel of Jesus Christ upon them. When a brother sins all efforts to restore him should be exhausted. However, if he will not repent and seek to reconcile himself with the Lord and those he has wronged his sins are to be layed upon him and he be given over to Satan. Jesus explained it as follows:

Matthew 18:15-18
15Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
16But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
17And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
18Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Paul also explained this authority:

I Corinthians 5:1-13
1It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.
2And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.
3For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed,
4In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,
5To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
6Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?
7Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
8Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
9I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
10Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
11But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
12For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?
13But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

Being an elder comes with great spiritual responsibility. We shouldn't see this verse as something that grants an authority to use lightly. It is perhaps one of the most serious of responsibilities given to church leadership. Always strive to restore such a one...only bind their sins upon them if they absolutlely refuse to repent...in the hopes that being turned over to their sins will shake them to ultimately repent.

[freeatlast]

The Apostles had power to remit sins it was practiced by baptizing the penitent in Jesus Name that power is vested in the ministry today.

See there TRF...and you said it was apples and oranges.

I could have prophesied who it would be to come along and claim to be able to remit sins, but then...........


Lost and Found: thanks for the great explanation you gave

[Steve Epley]

See there TRF...and you said it was apples and oranges.

I could have prophesied who it would be to come along and claim to be able to remit sins, but then...........


Lost and Found: thanks for the great explanation you gave

I am shocked you would disagree?????????????????:santathumb:christmoose:r udolph

[freeatlast]

I am shocked you would disagree?????????????????:santathumb:christmoose:r udolph

I've baptized a few people...but I have never remitted any sins.

I'll leave that up to Jesus and the work of Calvary. I understand he shares his glory with no man.

You'd look good in on of those pope hats though Steve. :bells

Merry Christmas to you and the Mrs. E :santaelf

[Steve Epley]

I've baptized a few people...but I have never remitted any sins.

I'll leave that up to Jesus and the work of Calvary. I understand he shares his glory with no man.

You'd look good in on of those pope hats though Steve. :bells

Merry Christmas to you and the Mrs. E :santaelf

You were instrumental however if any sins are remitted God has to do it. Calvary remits man's sins we recieve that remission by being baptised in His name thus in that manner I am instrumental in the remission of sins.

[OneAccord]

So... if I lay hands on the sick and pray for their healing, and they are healed... then I healed them? So if I lay hands on someone and they recieve the Holy Ghost, I have baptized them with the Holy Ghost? Or I have baptized someone in the Name of Jesus Christ...I have forgiven (or remitted) their sins?

Hah, too many I's there...the work of healing and salvation was wrought at Calvary by Jesus Christ.

[Ronzo]

You were instrumental however if any sins are remitted God has to do it. Calvary remits man's sins we recieve that remission by being baptised in His name thus in that manner I am instrumental in the remission of sins.
Sounds pretty Catholic to me, Padre.

[pelathais]

You were instrumental however if any sins are remitted God has to do it. Calvary remits man's sins we recieve that remission by being baptised in His name thus in that manner I am instrumental in the remission of sins.
The remission of sins at baptism theme can be followed in Acts:
Acts 2:38; Acts 10:43-44; Acts 13:38-39. The key needed for "remission of sins" was belief.

Aquila makes the same point that I was going to make concerning John 20:23. 1 Corithians 5 (the whole chapter) seems to be an example of what Jesus intended in john 20, along with Matthew 16:19 and Matthew 18.

[SDG]

The Apostles had power to remit sins it was practiced by baptizing the penitent in Jesus Name that power is vested in the ministry today.

See there TRF...and you said it was apples and oranges.

I could have prophesied who it would be to come along and claim to be able to remit sins, but then...........


Lost and Found: thanks for the great explanation you gave

I've baptized a few people...but I have never remitted any sins.

I'll leave that up to Jesus and the work of Calvary. I understand he shares his glory with no man.

You'd look good in on of those pope hats though Steve. :bells

Merry Christmas to you and the Mrs. E :santaelf

You were instrumental however if any sins are remitted God has to do it. Calvary remits man's sins we recieve that remission by being baptised in His name thus in that manner I am instrumental in the remission of sins.

So... if I lay hands on the sick and pray for their healing, and they are healed... then I healed them? So if I lay hands on someone and they recieve the Holy Ghost, I have baptized them with the Holy Ghost? Or I have baptized someone in the Name of Jesus Christ...I have forgiven (or remitted) their sins?

Hah, too many I's there...the work of healing and salvation was wrought at Calvary by Jesus Christ.

Sounds pretty Catholic to me, Padre.

Removed by Admin


Tell you what ... the papal/catholic views expressed by some of my PAJC brethren have reached new heights!!!

OMG .... it's not only papal to claim the apostles are instrumental in remitting sin ... but Mormon in character ...

From the LDS Articles of Faith:


We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.
We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.I would never make the differences between 3 steppers and 1 steppers a point of fellowship ...

but if someone starts preaching this stuff at the church I pastor .... tell you what .... :star:star:star

[Brother Price]

I want to thank Bro. Epley for opening my eyes to the difference, and the Lord for allowing me to have an open heart to receive the truth.

Bro. Alicea knows of what I speak.

[mizpeh]

Being an elder comes with great spiritual responsibility. We shouldn't see this verse as something that grants an authority to use lightly. It is perhaps one of the most serious of responsibilities given to church leadership. Always strive to restore such a one...only bind their sins upon them if they absolutlely refuse to repent...in the hopes that being turned over to their sins will shake them to ultimately repent.

Let me see if I understand you; as a disciplinary measure, church leadership can bind the sins on someone who is disobedient and unrepentant and these disobedient believers are now turned over to Satan but if they repent then their sins are loosed (ie; remitted)?

It would be helpful if the word, remitted, appeared in any of the verses you choose to use to prove your point. Even the word, forgiveness, would help your cause.

[mizpeh]

Tell you what ... the papal/catholic views expressed by some of my PAJC brethren have reached new heights!!!

OMG .... it's not only papal to claim the apostles are instrumental in remitting sin ... but Mormon in character ...

From the LDS Articles of Faith:

I would never make the differences between 3 steppers and 1 steppers a point of fellowship ...

but if someone starts preaching this stuff at the church I pastor .... tell you what .... :star:star:star

You and Ronzo have brought nothing to the table but insults. Why don't you put up something of substance?:rudolph:rudolph:rudolph

[Steve Epley]

Tell you what ... the papal/catholic views expressed by some of my PAJC brethren have reached new heights!!!

OMG .... it's not only papal to claim the apostles are instrumental in remitting sin ... but Mormon in character ...

From the LDS Articles of Faith:

I would never make the differences between 3 steppers and 1 steppers a point of fellowship ...

but if someone starts preaching this stuff at the church I pastor .... tell you what .... :star:star:star

Dan it pleased God to save men by preaching 1Cor. 1:21 does that make the preacher the Saviour? No it does not. Yet the preacher is instrumental. Thus the same is with remission of sins it takes place in baptism in Jesus Name and the preacher is instrumental does he the preacher himself remits sins? NO but but he again is instrumental. Look Jesus said it NOT me. Fuss with Him.

[SDG]

You and Ronzo have brought nothing to the table but insults. Why don't you put up something of substance?:rudolph:rudolph:rudolph

I posted the similar beliefs held by the Latter Day Saints ... that has to count for something .... *wink*

Give me a break ... you'd rather defend this heretical extreme viewpoint expressed by some in this thread, that I know you don't believe, than call a spade a spade.

[mizpeh]

Dan it pleased God to save men by preaching 1Cor. 1:21 does that make the preacher the Saviour? No it does not. Yet the preacher is instrumental. Thus the same is with remission of sins it takes place in baptism in Jesus Name and the preacher is instrumental does he the preacher himself remits sins? NO but but he again is instrumental. Look Jesus said it NOT me. Fuss with Him.

:santathumb

[Praxeas]

Tell you what ... the papal/catholic views expressed by some of my PAJC brethren have reached new heights!!!

OMG .... it's not only papal to claim the apostles are instrumental in remitting sin ... but Mormon in character ...

From the LDS Articles of Faith:

I would never make the differences between 3 steppers and 1 steppers a point of fellowship ...

but if someone starts preaching this stuff at the church I pastor .... tell you what .... :star:star:star
I guess using that sort of lame logic you are papal and Mormon in character since they also both claim Jesus is God

[Praxeas]

You and Ronzo have brought nothing to the table but insults. Why don't you put up something of substance?:rudolph:rudolph:rudolph
exactly....that is par the course. No real substance, just insults and perjorative comments

[SDG]

Dan it pleased God to save men by preaching 1Cor. 1:21 does that make the preacher the Saviour? No it does not. Yet the preacher is instrumental. Thus the same is with remission of sins it takes place in baptism in Jesus Name and the preacher is instrumental does he the preacher himself remits sins? NO but but he again is instrumental. Look Jesus said it NOT me. Fuss with Him.

Your words:

Originally Posted by Steve Epley http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?p=334446#post334446)

The Apostles had power to remit sins it was practiced by baptizing the penitent in Jesus Name that power is vested in the ministry today.

[mizpeh]

I posted the similar beliefs held by the Latter Day Saints ... that has to count for something .... *wink*

Give me a break ... you'd rather defend this heretical extreme viewpoint expressed by some in this thread, that I know you don't believe, than call a spade a spade.

What makes you think I don't believe it?

Remission of sins takes place at water baptism. Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16 If a minister will not baptise someone who they believe has not repented then that person sins are not remitted. Dan, I'm being very consistent in my beliefs as is Bro Elpey.

[SDG]

What makes you think I don't believe it?

Remission of sins takes place at water baptism. Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16 If a minister will not baptise someone who they believe has not repented then that person sins are not remitted. Dan, I'm being very consistent in my beliefs as is Bro Elpey.

Perhaps I mispoke .... Then your view is as papal and Mormon as the good Elder's.

[Praxeas]

What makes you think I don't believe it?

Remission of sins takes place at water baptism. Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16 If a minister will not baptise someone who they believe has not repented then that person sins are not remitted. Dan, I'm being very consistent in my beliefs as is Bro Elpey.
I wonder when Dan is going to answer the question and tell us how this verse is to be interpreted....could it be they remit sins by the preaching the word? If so they still have some "power"

[mizpeh]

Perhaps I mispoke .... Then your view is a papal and Mormon as the good Elder's.

23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.


When is sin remitted?
Who is remitting the sin?
Why did Jesus give them this authority?

[Aquila]

The remission of sins at baptism theme can be followed in Acts:
Acts 2:38; Acts 10:43-44; Acts 13:38-39. The key needed for "remission of sins" was belief.

The word "remission" is "aphesis" in the Greek. It simply means "forgiveness". In Acts 2:38 the baptism clause is in the passive voice thus indicating that it isn't the focus in relation to the remission of sins but rather repentance is. Acts 10 clearly indicates that yes, baptism is a command of Scripture. Acts 13:38-39 doesn't mention baptism but rather faith in Christ.

If sins are not remitted (forgiven) until baptism....how do individuals both in Scripture and in modern Pentecost receive the Holy Ghost prior to baptism? Can one receive the baptism of the Holy Ghost, God's Holy Spirit, without first being forgiven?

I'm not saying that Jesus name baptism isn't a command of Scripture to be preached and obeyed. What I'm saying is that the idea that sins are not remitted until baptism is essentially baptismal regeneration and renders baptism the basis of sins forgiveness and not the blood of Christ. The idea threatens the very atonement of the cross for a Pentecostal Sacramentalism. Please understand. I'm not saying that it's ok for one not to be baptized, because it's an explicit command of Scripture. What I'm questioning is what you claim happens at baptism.

I'll re-ask my questions so you can review and answer:

If sins are not remitted (forgiven) until baptism....how do individuals both in Scripture and in modern Pentecost receive the Holy Ghost prior to baptism? Can one receive the baptism of the Holy Ghost, God's Holy Spirit, without first being forgiven?

[Aquila]

What makes you think I don't believe it?

Remission of sins takes place at water baptism. Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16 If a minister will not baptise someone who they believe has not repented then that person sins are not remitted. Dan, I'm being very consistent in my beliefs as is Bro Elpey.

Does this mean that the Lord would allow a bitter minister to stand in the way of a repentant sinner's salvation?

[mizpeh]

I wonder when Dan is going to answer the question and tell us how this verse is to be interpreted....could it be they remit sins by the preaching the word? If so they still have some "power"

"Dan is going to look through some commentaries and post a very long post", saith me! :christmoose

[SDG]

23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.


When is sin remitted?
Who is remitting the sin?
Why did Jesus give them this authority?

BUWWWWWAHHHHHAAAA!!!!

ROFL ... You forget .... in the 1 step view ... forgiveness and remission are one and the same ...

In your view remission is distinct ... it means to wash away ... erase ... blot out ... etc., etc.

The Greek uses one word for both forgiveness and remission ... APHESIS.

That's because the writers made no distinction ..... either ...

Yet today we have a backwards theology relying on the KJV distinctions to formulate FALSE doctrine.

[mizpeh]

Does this mean that the Lord would allow a bitter minister to stand in the way of a repentant sinner's salvation?

What? A hypothetical question?

I don't know maybe the Lord will strike the bitter minister dead and allow a Spirit filled minister to take his place and baptize the repentent sinner in Jesus name.

[SDG]

"Dan is going to look through some commentaries and post a very long post", saith me! :christmoose

See the post before this one for my long winded and arduous research!!!!

[Steve Epley]

What makes you think I don't believe it?

Remission of sins takes place at water baptism. Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16 If a minister will not baptise someone who they believe has not repented then that person sins are not remitted. Dan, I'm being very consistent in my beliefs as is Bro Elpey.
True!
We have that power by obeying what Jesus said not that power at will like the Roman church teaches. Our authority is limited to what the Lord said.
And you know that.

[Aquila]

23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.


When is sin remitted?

In this context (remember context is key) the sin is remitted upon the wayward's repentance as they are led to repentance by the apostle in question.

Who is remitting the sin?

Specifically, in context, the 11 disciples. However, Paul essentially teaches the same process in I Corinthians 15 and indicates that it is a process of church discipline.

Why did Jesus give them this authority?

To establish a process by which spiritual authority can call for repentance and if necessary purge the church of those who are in continual sin and rebellion against Christ's gospel.

[Steve Epley]

23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.


When is sin remitted?
Who is remitting the sin?
Why did Jesus give them this authority?

Jesus evidently according to Dan was either Papal or a Mormon.

[mizpeh]

BUWWWWWAHHHHHAAAA!!!!

ROFL ... You forget .... in the 1 step view ... forgiveness and remission are one and the same ...

In your view remission is distinct ... it means to wash away ... erase ... blot out ... etc., etc.

The Greek uses one word for both forgiveness and remission ... APHESIS.

That's because the writers made no distinction ..... either ...

Yet today we have a backwards theology relying on the KJV distinctions to formulate FALSE doctrine.
23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.



Who is remitting the sin?
Why did Jesus give them this authority?

Can you answer these verses from this scripture alone?

[SDG]

In this context (remember context is key) the sin is remitted upon the wayward's repentance as they are led to repentance by the apostle in question.



Specifically, in context, the 11 disciples. However, Paul essentially teaches the same process in I Corinthians 15 and indicates that it is a process of church discipline.



To establish a process by which spiritual authority can call for repentance and if necessary purge the church of those who are in continual sin and rebellion against Christ's gospel.

Aquila ... unless you define terms w/ these folks as to what remit means ... you're wasting your time ...

They believe remit is distinct from forgiveness found in repentance .... remission only occurs at baptism ... while forgiveness is found at the confessional prayer.

[Steve Epley]

23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.



Who is remitting the sin?
Why did Jesus give them this authority?

Can you answer these verses from this scripture alone?

He never has maybe this will be a change we shall see?:bells

[Steve Epley]

Aquila ... unless you define terms w/ these folks as to what remit means ... you're wasting your time ...

They believe remit is distinct from forgiveness found in repentance .... remission only occurs at baptism ... while forgiveness is found at the confessional prayer.

You are not far from the kingdom.:santathumb

[mizpeh]

See the post before this one for my long winded and arduous research!!!!

You're being lazy tonight, Dan. Usually you find something from your buddy, ....his name slips my mind at the moment..?

[SDG]

You're being lazy tonight, Dan. Usually you find something from your buddy, ....his name slips my mind at the moment..?

Nothing lazy tonite, Mizpeh ... as long as our terms are different ... our conclusions will be ... A WASTE OF TIME.

This passage deals w/ forgiveness ... and Aquila has presented some good thoughts ...

Your view on remission is dictating the interpretation of
this scripture as to fit your baptismal regeneration and salvational re-enactment doctrine.

[Praxeas]

You're being lazy tonight, Dan. Usually you find something from your buddy, ....his name slips my mind at the moment..?
Eh....John Calvin?

[Praxeas]

Nothing lazy tonite, Mizpeh ... as long as our terms are different ... our conclusions will be ... A WASTE OF TIME.

This passage deals w/ forgiveness ... and Aquila has presented some good thoughts ...

Your view on remission is dictating the interpretation of
this scripture as to fit your baptismal regeneration and salvational re-enactment doctrine.
So how did the Apostles have the power to forgive or not forgive someone's sins? That is as Papal as anything.

[mizpeh]

In this context (remember context is key) the sin is remitted upon the wayward's repentance as they are led to repentance by the apostle in question.Here is the context:

19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. 20 And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord.
21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.
22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

Where does it mention repentance?


Specifically, in context, the 11 disciples. However, Paul essentially teaches the same process in I Corinthians 15 and indicates that it is a process of church discipline. I'd like to believe what you are saying BUT there is no mention of forgiveness nor or remission in 1 Cor 5 and you will have to stretch it to find repentance...maybe here in verse 2 And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned,

To establish a process by which spiritual authority can call for repentance and if necessary purge the church of those who are in continual sin and rebellion against Christ's gospelYou want to apply this verse in John 20 to the church, why?

[SDG]

So how did the Apostles have the power to forgive or not forgive someone's sins? That is as Papal as anything.

The same way you have the power to forgive those who offend and trangress against you Praxeas.

Y'all enjoy the rest of the evening ... I got to go wash ... I mean remit my dirty laundry.

[mizpeh]

Eh....John Calvin?

No, that's not his name. I think the guy was a former UPC but is now in an 'orthodox' denomination. Bro Elpey will know his name.

[Praxeas]

The same way you have the power to forgive those who offend and trangress against you Praxeas.

Y'all enjoy the rest of the evening ... I got go wash ... I mean remit my dirty laundry.
that's not at all what the verse is saying Dan and you know it lol

He never mentions being offended.

[Praxeas]

No, that's not his name. I think the guy was a former UPC but is now in an 'orthodox' denomination. Bro Elpey will know his name.
Bernie?

[mizpeh]

The same way you have the power to forgive those who offend and trangress against you Praxeas.

Y'all enjoy the rest of the evening ... I got go wash ... I mean remit my dirty laundry.

Good night, Dan.

I've got a few things to do as well. :santaclaus

[mizpeh]

Bernie?

Yep!

[Steve Epley]

The question is:
What did Jesus mean in Jn. 20:23, Mt. 16:19?
Since He uses the term remit we as Apostolic just look at the command then the obedience to that command it is simple.
Jesus said .....remission of sins should be preached in His Name BEGINNING at Jerusalem. Luke 25:47
When the man who was given the keys preached remission of sins it was to be performed at baptism. And the passage says "as many as recieved HIS word were baptized."
Thus He remitted their sins in obeying what Jesus told him to preach and to do.
So if we are wrong who misled us if it wasn't Jesus?

[Steve Epley]

No, that's not his name. I think the guy was a former UPC but is now in an 'orthodox' denomination. Bro Elpey will know his name.

Bernie is the name!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:santathum b

[Encryptus]

The Apostles had power to remit sins it was practiced by baptizing the penitent in Jesus Name that power is vested in the ministry today.

Dan it pleased God to save men by preaching 1Cor. 1:21 does that make the preacher the Saviour? No it does not. Yet the preacher is instrumental. Thus the same is with remission of sins it takes place in baptism in Jesus Name and the preacher is instrumental does he the preacher himself remits sins? NO but but he again is instrumental. Look Jesus said it NOT me. Fuss with Him.

Interesting concept Steve. So ONLY ministers have the authority to baptize. And ONLY preachers are instrumental in the rite of baptism for the remission of sins (to you: in order to remit sins)??

Therefore protestant "preachers" fulfill the duties of catholic priests in salvation,( ie can't be saved without one). But of course unlike catholics, protestants can go straight to Jesus for subsequent sins. Or since the water remits sins do they have to be continually re-baptized in water? (In lieu of confession to priest)

[Aquila]

The King James translation of Acts 2:38 '...be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins...' may be inaccurate. The Greek preposition "eis", translated for, is an indefinite preposition of reference. It does not mean "in order to". If Peter had commanded the people to be baptized in order to receive the remission of sins, he would have needed to use the Greek preposition "hina", which means "in order to". But he didn't.

This preposition "eis", used about 1,800 times in the New testament in Greek, is variously translated, "for", "at", "toward", "unto", "into", etc. So it could be translated "for", as here, only in the sense of "on the basis of", or "on the grounds of."

Even in English the preposition "for" does not necessarily always mean "in order to". Often "for" means "on the basis of", or "on the grounds of". Thus one is scolded "for" being late, or arrested "for" stealing, or praised "for" beauty, or rewarded "for" bravery, or paid "for" work. It could very well mean that one is "baptized for the remission of sins," i.e., baptized for remission (aphesis, or "forgiveness") of sins already obtained when one repented.

Therefore an acceptable translation of Acts 2:38 straight out of the Greek could read:

"Peter answered them, 'Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ since your sins are forgiven. Then you will receive the Holy Spirit as a gift." (Acts 2:38, ISV)

The point is that we cannot deny other valid methods of interpretation and the possible implications of those interpretations. You may choose to "believe" that sins are only forgiven at baptism...but you cannot say with absolute authority that they cannot be forgiven when one repents. I believe that the operation of the Holy Ghost strongly testifies to the idea that sins are forgiven at repentance because so many receive the Holy Ghost days, weeks, and often months before they're water baptized. I even received the Holy Ghost before I was baptized. I remember my soul being set free from the burden of sin at that altar. I was lighter than air and speakingin other tongues. I was forgiven at that very moment. When asked if I wanted to be baptized my now cleansed soul desired to obey the Word and be water baptized. Being baptized symbolically represented my being buried with Christ.

Here's the deal...I was forgiven upon repentance or God wouldn't have baptized me with the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost will not dwell in an unclean temple. If sins are strictly forgiven at baptism...nobody could receive the Holy Ghost until after baptism. We know that to be incorrect because God does otherwise.

When traditional interpretations say one thing and God does another....who do you believe?

[Steve Epley]

Interesting concept Steve. So ONLY ministers have the authority to baptize. And ONLY preachers are instrumental in the rite of baptism for the remission of sins (to you: in order to remit sins)??

Therefore protestant "preachers" fulfill the duties of catholic priests in salvation,( ie can't be saved without one). But of course unlike catholics, protestants can go straight to Jesus for subsequent sins. Or since the water remits sins do they have to be continually re-baptized in water? (In lieu of confession to priest)

Well he did tell the preachers to baptize and all NT baptisms recorded was done by preachers? Can laymen baptize? I won't fuss with you but there is NO scriptural prescendent for it.

[SDG]

Aquila .... again as long as they see remission as being distinct from forgiveness based on the KJV wording ... you're wasting your time ...

Every time they see as much as a puddle in scripture or the English word remit .... this EQUATES TO A PROPERLY ADMINISTERED BAPTISM THAT MITIGATES GRACE AND WASHES AWAY SIN.

g'nite.

[Steve Epley]

The King James translation of Acts 2:38 '...be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins...' may be inaccurate. The Greek preposition "eis", translated for, is an indefinite preposition of reference. It does not mean "in order to". If Peter had commanded the people to be baptized in order to receive the remission of sins, he would have needed to use the Greek preposition "hina", which means "in order to". But he didn't.

This preposition "eis", used about 1,800 times in the New testament in Greek, is variously translated, "for", "at", "toward", "unto", "into", etc. So it could be translated "for", as here, only in the sense of "on the basis of", or "on the grounds of."

Even in English the preposition "for" does not necessarily always mean "in order to". Often "for" means "on the basis of", or "on the grounds of". Thus one is scolded "for" being late, or arrested "for" stealing, or praised "for" beauty, or rewarded "for" bravery, or paid "for" work. It could very well mean that one is "baptized for the remission of sins," i.e., baptized for remission (aphesis, or "forgiveness") of sins already obtained when one repented.

Therefore an acceptable translation of Acts 2:38 straight out of the Greek could read:

"Peter answered them, 'Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ since your sins are forgiven. Then you will receive the Holy Spirit as a gift." (Acts 2:38, ISV)

The point is that we cannot deny other valid methods of interpretation and the possible implications of those interpretations. You may choose to "believe" that sins are only forgiven at baptism...but you cannot say with absolute authority that they cannot be forgiven when one repents. I believe that the operation of the Holy Ghost strongly testifies to the idea that sins are forgiven at repentance because so many receive the Holy Ghost days, weeks, and often months before they're water baptized. I even received the Holy Ghost before I was baptized. I remember my soul being set free from the burden of sin at that altar. I was lighter than air and speakingin other tongues. I was forgiven at that very moment. When asked if I wanted to be baptized my now cleansed soul desired to obey the Word and be water baptized. Being baptized symbolically represented my being buried with Christ.

Here's the deal...I was forgiven upon repentance or God wouldn't have baptized me with the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost will not dwell in an unclean temple. If sins are strictly forgiven at baptism...nobody could receive the Holy Ghost until after baptism. We know that to be incorrect because God does otherwise.

When traditional interpretations say one thing and God does another....who do you believe?

I posted pages of authorities that stated "Eis" means in order to and not because of. If someone knows how they can repost them. I covered you guys up with authorities and it did not matter one iota.

[Steve Epley]

Aquila .... again as long as they see remission as being distinct as forgiveness based on the KJV wording ... you're wasting your time ...

Every time they see as much as a puddle in scripture or the English word remit .... this EQUATES TO A PROPERLY ADMINISTERED BAPTISM THAT MITIGATES GRACE AND WASHES AWAY SIN.

g'nite.

The THEY here are the Apostles.

[Aquila]

Here is the context:

19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. 20 And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord.
21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.
22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

Where does it mention repentance?


I'd like to believe what you are saying BUT there is no mention of forgiveness nor or remission in 1 Cor 5 and you will have to stretch it to find repentance...maybe here in verse 2 And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned,

You want to apply this verse in John 20 to the church, why?

Mizpeh, I perceive you desire a debate. I'm not here to debate. I simply shared what I believe about the text. You will choose to believe what you believe best explains the text. You may be right. I hope you're right. I pray you're right. I'd rather be wrong than have a confrontation with you on this. It's not essential. Mizpeh...share with me what you believe...not as a debate...but as an exchange, a sharing of opinion.

[Encryptus]

Well he did tell the preachers to baptize and all NT baptisms recorded was done by preachers? Can laymen baptize? I won't fuss with you but there is NO scriptural prescendent(sic) for it.

Glad you don't want to fuss :-)

It would be sad to base a theology by assuming the every act by every saint over the time period covered by Acts was therein recorded.

But you ignored part two of post:

Therefore protestant "preachers" fulfill the duties of catholic priests in salvation,( ie can't be saved without one). But of course unlike catholics, protestants can go straight to Jesus for subsequent sins. Or since the water remits sins do they have to be continually re-baptized in water? (In lieu of confession to priest)

[SDG]

I posted pages of authorities that stated "Eis" means in order to and not because of. If someone knows how they can repost them. I covered you guys up with authorities and it did not matter one iota.

"Because of" is used because many of the sacramentalists understand "eis" to be a causal "for" ...

There are many authorities that support that eis is a resultant for ... hence why Aquila is using because of...

The best translation for "eis" ... and supported by most translators is .... "with a view towards" ...

We are baptized with a view towards the work of the Lamb at Calvary that remits our sin.

[Hoovie]

So God is not able to forgive/remit sin on behalf of the cross alone prior to baptism, but post baptism forgiveness occurs on behalf of the cross AND prior baptism?

[Encryptus]

So God is not able to forgive/remit sin on behalf of the cross alone prior to baptism, but post baptism forgiveness occurs on behalf of the cross AND prior baptism?

Does seem to be what SE is saying doesn't it??

[Hoovie]

Does seem to be what SE is saying doesn't it??

So what a prior work on the cross could not accomplish a prior work in water baptism could??? How bizarre!

[Steve Epley]

So God is not able to forgive/remit sin on behalf of the cross alone prior to baptism, but post baptism forgiveness occurs on behalf of the cross AND prior baptism?

God is ABLE to do anything he wants He is God however it is HE not I that gave the Apostles power to remit sins and told them how to do it. And they did it in water baptism is Jesus Name.
Jesus said remission of sins preached in His name would began at Jerusalem that is your problem NOT mine.
Water does NOT wash away sins anymore than water healed Naaman but faith in what the man of God said healed him of his leprousy when he dipped according to the SAYING of the man of God. Did that make the prophet a healer?

[mizpeh]

I posted pages of authorities that stated "Eis" means in order to and not because of. If someone knows how they can repost them. I covered you guys up with authorities and it did not matter one iota.

Do a search on "read them and weep" !!!! :jolly:jolly:jolly

[Aquila]

I posted pages of authorities that stated "Eis" means in order to and not because of. If someone knows how they can repost them. I covered you guys up with authorities and it did not matter one iota.

Many authorities state otherwise dear Bro. Epley. All one has to do is survey the vast array of Evangelical Christianity, it's commentaries, it's college material, it's biblical Greek courses, etc. But I think you missed my point. My point is that equally intelligent men who have extensively studied Greek disagree. That means there is room for much misunderstanding of the text. I've studied many of the scholars the UPCI and others refer to. I've also studied those who disagree with them and who explain why with equal vigor. Therefore I believe there may be reason to be flexible here with claiming when and where sins are forgiven. I'm not trying to say that one doesn't need to be baptized. It's a clear command of Scripture.

Here's something interesting...if only those who have been water baptized in Jesus name are saved...don't sing Amazing Grace in church. If you're right, the man who wrote it, John Newton, was never saved and never experienced God's grace. Also...don't use the King James Bible. Clearly none of the translators were saved, therefore they were clearly open to deception and the translation cannot be trusted. Please strictly use an "Apostolic" translation of the Scriptures as we discuss this.

You wouldn't even have a Bible to read if God didn't guide the likes of William Tyndale. But because of your tradition you will condemn him in one breath and quote a translation that was an answer to his very prayers the next.

It's inconsistant at best...

[Steve Epley]

So what a prior work on the cross could not accomplish a prior work in water baptism could??? How bizarre!

You guys don't have a clue. Christ's blood at Calvary forgave and remitted ALL mankind's sin without exception. However man must believe and obey the gospel to recieve forgiveness and remission of sins.

[SDG]

You guys don't have a clue. Christ's blood at Calvary forgave and remitted ALL mankind's sin without exception. However man must believe and obey the gospel to recieve forgiveness and remission of sins.


SH, are the Elder's remarks NEW TO YOU ???? Were you clueless to this "revelation"???

[Steve Epley]

Many authorities state otherwise dear Bro. Epley. All one has to do is survey the vast array of Evangelical Christianity, it's commentaries, it's college material, it's biblical Greek courses, etc. But I think you missed my point. My point is that equally intelligent men who have extensively studied Greek disagree. That means there is room for much misunderstanding of the text. I've studied many of the scholars the UPCI and others refer to. I've also studied those who disagree with them and who explain why with equal vigor. Therefore I believe there may be reason to be flexible here with claiming when and where sins are forgiven. I'm not trying to say that one doesn't need to be baptized. It's a clear command of Scripture.

Here's something interesting...if only those who have been water baptized in Jesus name are saved...don't sing Amazing Grace in church. If you're right, the man who wrote it, John Newton, was never saved and never experienced God's grace. Also...don't use the King James Bible. Clearly none of the translators were saved, therefore they were clearly open to deception and the translation cannot be trusted. Please strictly use an "Apostolic" translation of the Scriptures as we discuss this.

You wouldn't even have a Bible to read if God didn't guide the likes of William Tyndale. But because of your tradition you will condemn him in one breath and quote a translation that was an answer to his very prayers the next.

It's inconsistant at best...

Will someone repost the letter the lady wrote to those Greek professors and the authorities I cited. I covered them up with authorites and they wouldn't even address them. They don't care they are enamoured with the 'faith only' teachers and their sources.

[SDG]

Many authorities state otherwise dear Bro. Epley. All one has to do is survey the vast array of Evangelical Christianity, it's commentaries, it's college material, it's biblical Greek courses, etc. But I think you missed my point. My point is that equally intelligent men who have extensively studied Greek disagree. That means there is room for much misunderstanding of the text. I've studied many of the scholars the UPCI and others refer to. I've also studied those who disagree with them and who explain why with equal vigor. Therefore I believe there may be reason to be flexible here with claiming when and where sins are forgiven. I'm not trying to say that one doesn't need to be baptized. It's a clear command of Scripture.

Here's something interesting...if only those who have been water baptized in Jesus name are saved...don't sing Amazing Grace in church. If you're right, the man who wrote it, John Newton, was never saved and never experienced God's grace. Also...don't use the King James Bible. Clearly none of the translators were saved, therefore they were clearly open to deception and the translation cannot be trusted. Please strictly use an "Apostolic" translation of the Scriptures as we discuss this.

You wouldn't even have a Bible to read if God didn't guide the likes of William Tyndale. But because of your tradition you will condemn him in one breath and quote a translation that was an answer to his very prayers the next.

It's inconsistant at best...

This about the time he posts his "authoritative" list and basks in the glory of the logical fallacy of appeal to authority...

While ecstatically proclaiming "Read 'em and weep!"

Of course ... he can't deny that the best translation for eis is "with a view towards"

[mizpeh]

Will someone repost the letter the lady wrote to those Greek professors and the authorities I cited. I covered them up with authorites and they wouldn't even address them. They don't care they are enamoured with the 'faith only' teachers and their sources.

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showpost.php?p=90001&postcount=515

[mizpeh]

This about the time he posts his "authoritative" list and basks in the glory of the logical fallacy of appeal to authority...

While ecstatically proclaiming "Read 'em and weep!"

Of course ... he can't deny that the best translation for eis is "with a view towards"


"A view towards" is not the same as "because of". Because of looks back.

[Aquila]

God is ABLE to do anything he wants He is God however it is HE not I that gave the Apostles power to remit sins and told them how to do it. And they did it in water baptism is Jesus Name.
Jesus said remission of sins preached in His name would began at Jerusalem that is your problem NOT mine.
Water does NOT wash away sins anymore than water healed Naaman but faith in what the man of God said healed him of his leprousy when he dipped according to the SAYING of the man of God. Did that make the prophet a healer?

The reference in John 20 isn't a reference to baptism. It's mirrored quite well in something Matthew wrote. Compare the two:

John 20:21-23
21Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.
22And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
23Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

Matthew 18:15-18
15Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
16But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
17And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
18Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Jesus is essentially referencing in John 20 what he had taught them earlier as found in Matthew 18. This has nothing to do with baptism.

We almost make preachers little popes. I fear we're becoming "Cathostolic".

[SDG]

This about the time he posts his "authoritative" list and basks in the glory of the logical fallacy of appeal to authority...

While ecstatically proclaiming "Read 'em and weep!"

Of course ... he can't deny that the best translation for eis is "with a view towards"


http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showpost.php?p=90001&postcount=515

Here it comes .... gang way!!! :christmasjig

[Steve Epley]

SH, are the Elder's remarks NEW TO YOU ???? Were you clueless to this "revelation"???

Dan our problem has NEVER been what Christ accomplished on the cross you and I both know this our difference is HOW we appropriate what was made available on the cross. The cross is the crux of salvation and redemption through the Holy Blood of Jesus. You guys build a strawman. Why not just really say what we believe?
I have said over and over "That remission of sins in this dispensation only takes place in water baptism in Jesus Name for the penitent."

[Hoovie]

SH, are the Elder's remarks NEW TO YOU ???? Were you clueless to this "revelation"???

No not so new.... just not something my experience relates to.


I am shooting from a different perspective though.
I have a question for three steppers... When one sins and becomes repentant, post the three steps, on what grounds is he granted repentance?

[Steve Epley]

The reference in John 20 isn't a reference to baptism. It's mirrored quite well in something Matthew wrote. Compare the two:

John 20:21-23
21Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.
22And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
23Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

Matthew 18:15-18
15Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
16But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
17And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
18Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Jesus is essentially referencing in John 20 what he had taught them earlier as found in Matthew 18. This has nothing to do with baptism.

We almost make preachers little popes. I fear we're becoming "Cathostolic".

John and Matthew are NOT the same setting.

[mizpeh]

Here it comes .... gang way!!! :christmasjig:christmoose

I can't stop laughing! :jolly:jolly:jolly

[SDG]

Cathostolics vs. Bapticostals ... Friday night smack down on AFF!!!

[Steve Epley]

No not so new.... just not something my experience relates to.


I am shooting from a different perspective though.
I have a question for three steppers... When one sins and becomes repentant post the three steps on what grounds is he granted repentance?

WHO is a three-stepper?????????????????????

Dan & Fudge has you confused?????????????????????????

I have NEVER preached 3 steps another strawman. I don't know if I ever heard anyone preach 3 steps. And I only remember reading one tract that said that.

[Praxeas]

Well he did tell the preachers to baptize and all NT baptisms recorded was done by preachers? Can laymen baptize? I won't fuss with you but there is NO scriptural prescendent for it.
SE please show me where ALL NT baptisms were done by "preachers"..then while at it, define preachers using scriptures....

Then define layman using scriptures....the problem is it's not there. There is no special class division in scriptures of preachers/laymen (have nots)

[SDG]

:christmoose

I can't stop laughing! :jolly:jolly:jolly

You know I really need to go remit my dirty laundry .... I got bags of clothes to remit.

[mizpeh]

Cathostolics vs. Bapticostals ... Friday night smack down on AFF!!!

Sorry, Bro Elpey, I've gotta go. Have fun! :santathumb

[Hoovie]

WHO is a three-stepper?????????????????????

Dan & Fudge has you confused?????????????????????????

I have NEVER preached 3 steps another strawman. I don't know if I ever heard anyone preach 3 steps. And I only remember reading one tract that said that.

Rev Devito, I speak in common AFF language - accepted by liberals and conservatives alike.

[Steve Epley]

SE please show me where ALL NT baptisms were done by "preachers"..then while at it, define preachers using scriptures....

Then define layman using scriptures....the problem is it's not there. There is no special class division in scriptures of preachers/laymen (have nots)

Every place a baptism is recorded a preacher was involved in Acts.
The command to baptize was given to preachers. Mt. 28:19

[SDG]

Every place a baptism is recorded a preacher was involved in Acts.
The command to baptize was given to preachers. Mt. 28:19

And they better be male or if not .... you just got wet and are lost as two boys kissing.

[Steve Epley]

Rev Devito, I speak in common AFF language - accepted by liberals and conservatives alike.

NOT accepted by this conservative I refuse to give Fudge the right to label me.

[Praxeas]

"Because of" is used because many of the sacramentalists understand "eis" to be a causal "for" ...

There are many authorities that support that eis is a resultant for ... hence why Aquila is using because of...

The best translation for "eis" ... and supported by most translators is .... "with a view towards" ...

We are baptized with a view towards the work of the Lamb at Calvary that remits our sin.

"for" is a perfectly grammatical translation and that is coming from people that don't believe baptism is essential.

Dan you say most translators support "with a view towards"...can you prove that?

[Steve Epley]

And they better be male or if not .... you just got wet and are lost as two boys kissing.

I guess you have a passage where a woman baptized?

[Aquila]

If remission (forgiveness of sins) doesn't take place until water baptism...how did Cornelius' household, me, and countless others receive the Holy Ghost before our sins were forgiven???

Perhaps someone should have spoke up and said, "Now God, these guys are not forgiven until I dunk 'em."

[Praxeas]

Every place a baptism is recorded a preacher was involved in Acts.
how do you know? YOu are just saying that. Was Stephan a preacher? Where is the word preacher used?

Where does the bible distinguish between preachers and laypersons?

[SDG]

If remission (forgiveness of sins) doesn't take place until water baptism...how did Cornelius' household, me, and countless others receive the Holy Ghost before our sins were forgiven???

Perhaps someone should have spoke up and said, "Now God, these guys are not forgiven until I dunk 'em."

They received it on credit, Aquila.

[mizpeh]

Quote:
Originally Posted by mizpeh
Here is Bro Elpey's list I copied to my harddrive from the GNC awhile ago.

More on “Eis” in Acts 2:38 (GNC)

Nothing in the NT speaks of the blood 'being applied" the blood was shed at Calvary and through faith in the shed blood I recieve:
1. Forgiveness of sins at repentance
2. Remission of sins at baptism
3. The life of the the Blood in th baptism of the Holy Ghost.
In the Tabernacle the "WALK" that began at the brazen altar had blood sprinkled on every piece of furniture thus in every aspect of our 'walk' the priest came in contact with that which was sanctified by the blood. So I concur with your thoughts.
Faith in his blood procurs each and every aspect of our salvation WHEN we BY faith OBEY His word.

Translations that for the word "UNTO" for the word "eis" in Acts 2:38:
Amercian Standard version
English Revised version(1881) Johnannes Lauritzen Translation
American Bible Union NT Modern King James Version (Green)
E.e. Cunnington Translation The Living Scriptures (Green)
George Swann Translation A. S. Worrell Translations
Modern Reader's Bible(Monton) Westministers(Cuthbert-Lattery)
Numeric New Testament(Panin) W. B. Godbey Translation

I found on paper the article I told you of this woman sent Acts 2:38 to these noted college professors asking them if "eis" could mean 'because of" in the passage.
Here are the replies:
1.Frederick M. Combellack, University of Oregon
"The Greek proposition "eis" is NOT used to express cause. One of it's common uses is to express purpose. That is the usage illustrated in the passage you quote from Acts 2:38. Peter means "Let each of you be baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ FOR THE PRUPOSE of the remission of yours sins."
2. J.B. McDiarmid, Executive Officier, University of Washington, Department of Classics, Seattle,
"Thank you for your letter of November 4, I think that "eis" NEVER means
"because of" in the sense "as the result of." It may mean "because of" in the sense of "with a veiw to." as apparently it does in this passage. That it may express the end either literal or figurative TOWARD which the action tends. In this passage the remission of sins is the END of the act of baptism."
3. Robert B. Cross, Department of Greek and Latin, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, Ca.
"As far as I am able to determine "eis" in the New Testament at any rate can ONLY be translated by such a phrase as "for the purpose of" in order to accomplish and the like. It could be translated "because of" in the sense of "for the purpose of" or "for the cause of" -which means exactly the same thing. It could NEVER mean "because of" in the sense of "on account of."
MORE TO COME!
4. John L. Heller, Professor of the Classics, University of Illinois,"I do NOT believe that "eis" over means "because of" and certainly NOT in the passage you quote: "Peter said unto them Repent and be baptized, each of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the sake of forgiveness of your sins" Here "eis" is certainly NOT causal but final, meaning "for the purpose of" in order to recieve."
5. John V. A. Fine, Department of Classics, Princeton University, Princeton NJ.
" To the best of my knowledge "eis" CANNOT mean "because of". It does not express cause but frequently expressed purpose. Acts 2:38 I shall translate(literally) as follows: "And Peter said unto them Repent and let each of you be baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins."
6. Warren E. Lake, Professor of Greek Language and Literature, Dept. of Greek, University of Michigan,
" The proposition "eis" can never have the force of 'because of' at any period of the langauge. Its primary meaning is ALWAYS "to" into" in the NT and Modern Greek "in". It is used in thie passage in the metaphorical sense of "limit of motion" , i.e. "be bapitized unto or with a view to" remission of sins . "This se is fairly frequent in NT particularly with the articular infinitive. Cf. Rom.3:25, Mt.20:19, Rom.1:11, 1Cor. 9:28 etc.
7. E. Bundy, Asst. Prof. of Classics, University of Berkley, Berkley, Ca.
"The preposition denotes 'purpose' "For the remittance of your sins" or with a veiw to the remitt etc. or "in order to(gain) remittance" or some such expression. Peter said unto them Repent and be baptized each of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remittance of your sins.." Eis" could ONLY be translated because of means purpose.
8. Henry B. Dewing, Bowdoin College and President of Athens College, Athens Greece,
" I should say that "eis" indicates not a result or consequence but rather END or design. I should translate "Let everyone of you baptized (the attainment of) forgiveness of sins..." The meaning 'because of" is UTTERLY OUT OF THE QUESTION.(emphasis mine) Professor of Athen's College mind you.
9. Henry Darling Brackett, Professor of Greek, Clark College
"In order to" but "for the purpose of" is better, because the fundamental universal meaning of "eis" is "toward" into" in the direction of" and NOT "out of' "arising from" or "because of".
10. Frank Hugh Foster, Instructor of New Testament Greek, Oberlin Graduate School of Theology
"The meaning of "eis" may be either of two things, either to indicate the purpose..or to indicate the result. In the first place it would be translated "in order to gain" in the second with the result of, the preposition "eis"
NEVER means because of.
11. E.A. Nida, member of Editorial board of "The Bible Translator." Vol. 3, no. 3, July 1952
"Repent and be baptized" and "sins are forgiven." Our problem at this point is to determine the relationship of these two expressions as we find it indicated in the Greek preposition "eis" usually translated "into" but having a variety of meanings including "unto" "for" "in" regards to." It is not easy to determine the precise relationships between these processes. We may regard the Greek "eis" as resultive,i.e.-the "baptism of repentance"results in forgiveness of sins. However "eis" could also designate the purpose of the baptism....In English we can use the ambiguous conjunctive phrase "so that" and translate the portion of the verse as "repent and be baptized so that their sins may be forgiven." The use of "so that...may" still leabes so ambiguity, as between purpose and result, but the principle emphasis is upon purpose.
12. Professor Flagg, Cornell University,"In respect to your inquiry about the force of the preposition "eis" in the passage of the NT to which you refer(Acts2:38), I should say that it denoted intent or purpose with a veiw to, much as if it has been written, "so as to obtain the remission of sins."

13. J. H. Huddleston, Professor of Greek, University of Maine
"Peter spoke to them "repent and let each one of you be baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ to the end (that there may be) delivery from your sins."EIS" CANNOT mean 'because of' but as often in the NT "for the purpose of."
14. Edgar J. Goodspeed, Professor of Bibilcal & Patristic Greek, University of Chicago,
Peter said unto them you must repent and everyone of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, in order to have your sins forgiven." it NEVER means "because of.'
15. Donald L. Wise, Moody Bible Institute,
We are inclined to agree with you that the evidence of its usage and interpetation in context indicate that the proposition(Eis in Acts 2:38) is used to indicate purpose. (From MOODY of all things!!!!!!!!!!! Their scholarship outweighed their theology.)
16. Clinton W. Keys, Assistant Professor of Greek and Latin, Columbia University, New York City,
"Change your attitudes and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the removal of your sins" "Eis" takes the accusative "aphesin." I don't see that it can mean anything but "for" "for the purpose of."
17. Canon Emile Chartier, Vuce Rector, Montreal University,
"But there is one meaning it (eis) never bears, not more in Biblical Greek than in Classical, and that is the causal(because of) He paraphrases-if you are sorry of your sins and you undergo baptism, your sins will be forgiven......"
How about it folks????????????????? Thus saith the Greek professors that speak and teach the language?
In the OT men had forgiveness of sins but sins were NEVER taken away! IN the NT remission of sins took place at Calvary through his blood. He was the Lamb that took away the sin of the world. In baptism we experience this benefit of the blood that was not available in the OT. NO sin in the NT is remitted outside of baptism ONLY in baptism is the promise that faith will remit past sins of the repented. While forgiveness and remission comes from the same word it is NOT accomplished in the same act. Forgiveness ALONE will not save in the NT church. The record has to be purged or cleared and only the blood accomplishes that in the act of baptism. Our faith in his blood frees-delivers-liberates-sends away-clears our sins in baptism in Jesus Name.
Brother Elpey

Again read it and weep.

[Steve Epley]

"for" is a perfectly grammatical translation and that is coming from people that don't believe baptism is essential.

Dan you say most translators support "with a view towards"...can you prove that?

NOPE he can't but if he could it would NOT prove his Baptist theory. He needs because of but he is too smart to use it because he has been backed down on that absurdity so he has jumped to this that does not help him either.

[Aquila]

John and Matthew are NOT the same setting.

No, I never said it was the same setting. I clearly stated that in John 20 Jesus was referencing what he had taught them earlier as recorded in Matthew 18. Please re-read what I had written.

[Steve Epley]

Again read it and weep.

Thank you and they are yet weeping.:horn

[Aquila]

They received it on credit, Aquila.

Scripture please?

Do you know how rediculous that sounds? I received the Holy Ghost on "credit". C'mon.

[mizpeh]

If remission (forgiveness of sins) doesn't take place until water baptism...how did Cornelius' household, me, and countless others receive the Holy Ghost before our sins were forgiven???

Perhaps someone should have spoke up and said, "Now God, these guys are not forgiven until I dunk 'em."

What happens when a Spirit filled believer sins? By your same logic how can a HOLY Spirit remain in an unholy vessel?

[mizpeh]

Thank you and they are yet weeping.:horn

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...&postcount=515

[SDG]

NOPE he can't but if he could it would NOT prove his Baptist theory. He needs because of but he is too smart to use it because he has been backed down on that absurdity so he has jumped to this that does not help him either.

17 professors agreed ... you've got us now .... how many are Catholic???? lol.

[Aquila]

What happens when a Spirit filled believer sins? By your same logic how can a HOLY Spirit remain in an unholy vessel?

The Holy Ghost will work with a sinner for a while...but he will depart if they continue in sin. However, it should be noted the blood is alread active in the believer's life at this point. Yet if initially sins are not forgiven until baptism...how did I receive the Holy Ghost before my sins were forgiven? Why was I led in prayer to praise God and thank him for forgiving my sin? Why was I lighter than air and cleansed after speaking in tongues and weeping my heart out on the altar?

It just doesn't make sense.

[SDG]

Scripture please?

Do you know how rediculous that sounds? I received the Holy Ghost on "credit". C'mon.

It is ridiculous ... but some of my papal friends have declared this very thing.

[Aquila]

17 professors agreed ... you've got us now .... how many are Catholic???? lol.


That's so true...the vast majority of them most likely believe that the doctrine of the Trinity is an essential Christian doctrine. LOL

[Steve Epley]

how do you know? YOu are just saying that. Was Stephan a preacher? Where is the word preacher used?

Where does the bible distinguish between preachers and laypersons?

Two questions have you read Acts 7? What is that if it is not a sermon?
But then that still doesn't help you NO ONE was baptized. Y'all guys are so easy.

[Aquila]

In the end it doesn't matter how many scholars say this or say that. The baptism clause in Acts 2:38 is in the passive voice. The WORD shows that. If you stand with the Bible...you're a majority. Also God himself fills repentant sinners with the Holy Ghost before baptism at altars in our churches all the time. God himself. Hmmm....

Who's report will you believe?

[Steve Epley]

That's so true...the vast majority of them most likely believe that the doctrine of the Trinity is an essential Christian doctrine. LOL

See it doesn't matter yet YOU invoke Evangelical Christianity???

There is NONE as blind as those who WILL not see!

[Steve Epley]

In the end it doesn't matter how many scholars say this or say that. The baptism clause in Acts 2:38 is in the passive voice. The WORD shows that. If you stand with the Bible...you're a majority. Also God himself fills repentant sinners with the Holy Ghost before baptism at altars in our churches all the time. God himself. Hmmm....

Who's report will you believe?

Sorry it is 'causive' again you are incorrect.

[SDG]

Welcome Aquila ... to the one stepper club.

[Aquila]

Two questions have you read Acts 7? What is that if it is not a sermon?
But then that still doesn't help you NO ONE was baptized. Y'all guys are so easy.

It wasn't a sermon. A sermon is prepared and taught by a preacher behind a big sacred desk during predetermined service times in a large building often bearing stained glass windows. Of course, none of this is ever even mentioned in Scripture. What you see in Acts 7 was a powerful protest by Stephen toward his persecutors who were poised to prosecute and eventually kill him.

It has nothing in common with the modern "sermon" as we know it. I do perceive that we are a very religious people.

[Steve Epley]

It wasn't a sermon. A sermon is prepared and taught by a preacher behind a big sacred desk during predetermined service times in a large building often bearing stained glass windows. Of course, none of this is ever even mentioned in Scripture. What you see in Acts 7 was a powerful protest by Stephen toward his persecutors who were poised to prosecute and eventually kill him.

It has nothing in common with the modern "sermon" as we know it. I do perceive that we are a very religious people.

Good grief Dan PLEASE help your friend. Over and out.:bells

[Aquila]

See it doesn't matter yet YOU invoke Evangelical Christianity???

There is NONE as blind as those who WILL not see!

Where did I quote a single Evangelica? LOL I simply provided an analytical examination of the Greek found in Acts 2:38. I mentioned Evangelicalism in passing. Would your references agree with Oneness, Jesus name baptism, and the baptism of the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in other tongues? If not...are they mistaken?

You have yet to answer my question...if my sins were not forgiven until I was baptized how did I receive the Holy Ghost prior to my baptism? How did my dear friend receive the Holy Ghost at the altar and attend church all week praising God and speaking in tongues before he was baptized in Jesus name?

You see...I have a question about a very real life changing experience...and you only have a theological argument and a dusty list of Trinitarian scholars. Please offer me an explaination, an answer to my experience that testifies to the contrary of your claim.

[Aquila]

Sorry it is 'causive' again you are incorrect.

According to one school of scholarship. Others strongly disagree. But who cares what either of these contradicting scholars think. Let's get into the trenches of applied truth and experience...if you are correct...how did I receive the Holy Ghost before my sins were forgiven?

[Steve Epley]

Where did I quote a single Evangelica? LOL I simply provided an analytical examination of the Greek found in Acts 2:38. I mentioned Evangelicalism in passing. Would your references agree with Oneness, Jesus name baptism, and the baptism of the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in other tongues? If not...are they mistaken?

You have yet to answer my question...if my sins were not forgiven until I was baptized how did I receive the Holy Ghost prior to my baptism? How did my dear friend receive the Holy Ghost at the altar and attend church all week praising God and speaking in tongues before he was baptized in Jesus name?

You see...I have a question about a very real life changing experience...and you only have a theological argument and a dusty list of Trinitarian scholars. Please offer me an explaination, an answer to my experience that testifies to the contrary of your claim.
God had mercy on you and your friend that doesn't change the Book. That is why I am NOT a three-stepper so-called. In Acts the penitent twice recieved the HGB before they were baptized BUT they were immediately baptized. Anyone who refuses baptism in Jesus Name either did NOT recieve the genuine HGB or did not follow it. However sins in the NT dispensation are remitted ONLY in water baptism in Jesus Name for the penitent.

[Aquila]

Welcome Aquila ... to the one stepper club.

I wouldnt go that far bro.

Baptism is a clear command of Scripture. If one is repents and is forgiven of their sins, they must obey the gospel and identify with Christ in his burial and resurrection through water baptism. If they refuse they are in rebellion and will be lost.

I firmly believe that the fulness of the Apostolic Gospel is found in repentance, water baptism in Jesus name, and the infilling of the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking with other tongues. I believe that the whole gospel should be preached and obeyed. Those who do not obey it are typically those who are simply ignorant of the Scripture's teachings or they are in outright rebellion.

[Sam]

Hmmm interesting...I wondered when I saw that scripture if "we" also lean on that scripturte for our stance on Sins ONLY being remitted when a "man" plunges one beneaththe water and calls on the name of the Lord.

Do we make ourselves an instument of remitting someones sins. No ones sins can remitted without a "preist/preacher" doing the work fo rthem.

Just a side thought TRF....sorry, it's not an answer to your question. :star

Bro. Frank Curts, Bible teacher and Supt of UPC Ohio District for many years said that men can remit sins (by baptizing someone in Jesus' name) but men cannot forgive sins.

Almost sounds like RCC doctrine, doesn't it?

[Steve Epley]

According to one school of scholarship. Others strongly disagree. But who cares what either of these contradicting scholars think. Let's get into the trenches of applied truth and experience...if you are correct...how did I receive the Holy Ghost before my sins were forgiven?

Who said your sins were not forgiven?????????????? NOT I!!!!!!!

[Steve Epley]

Bro. Frank Curts, Bible teacher and Supt of UPC Ohio District for many years said that men can remit sins (by baptizing someone in Jesus' name) but men cannot forgive sins.

Almost sounds like RCC doctrine, doesn't it?

He was wicked man wasn't he????????? That Trinitarian pastor you have now wouldn't have said nothing like that although he baptizes using Rome's formula.

[Scott Hutchinson]

I think when we preach the gospel and people obey it, they have their sins forgiven, if people reject Christ and the call to repentance they stay in their sins.

[SDG]

I wouldnt go that far bro.

Baptism is a clear command of Scripture. If one is repents and is forgiven of their sins, they must obey the gospel and identify with Christ in his burial and resurrection through water baptism. If they refuse they are in rebellion and will be lost.

I firmly believe that the fulness of the Apostolic Gospel is found in repentance, water baptism in Jesus name, and the infilling of the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking with other tongues. I believe that the whole gospel should be preached and obeyed. Those who do not obey it are typically those who are simply ignorant of the Scripture's teachings or they are in outright rebellion.

For the most part the PCIers or one steppers on this forum would agree w/ your post .... We all believe baptism is to be obeyed and is an visual representation and identification w/ His work.

As for calling the commands we must obey the "Apostolic Gospel" we would diverge.

To be a 3-stepper you must accept the doctrine of baptismal regeneration ... and you obviously don't/

[berkeley]

Who said your sins were not forgiven?????????????? NOT I!!!!!!!

The "forgiven but not remitted" argument??

[Praxeas]

That's so true...the vast majority of them most likely believe that the doctrine of the Trinity is an essential Christian doctrine. LOL
Does that make their knowledge of the greek somehow wrong? Or are you guys saying they lied? That claim can be made of anyone...under any circumstances

[Steve Epley]

I seldom post here anyone and only lurk casually and this attitude reminds me why. The prevailent attitude against the doctrine of the Apostolic church is the banner of AFF it seems. Trinitarians are exalted even con men but Apostolic preachers and the doctrine are held in repute. I said sometime back I wondered if this had become an ex-Pentecostal site and it seems more and more it has become that. Just clearly my chest. You cannot even discuss doctrine without insulting your own heritage and roots and I find myself in a 'hog-butchering' mood which I don't like. I must reconsider my involvement on this forum.

[Scott Hutchinson]

Elder Epley please stay as we need you and your opinion.

[Praxeas]

Two questions have you read Acts 7? What is that if it is not a sermon?
But then that still doesn't help you NO ONE was baptized. Y'all guys are so easy.
I read it. Steve....there are people here who are not by your estimation preachers that give "sermons"...the definition of a preacher is someone that proclaims the gospel....unless you are brain dead most UPCers proclaim the gospel in one form or another. If all that is required for someone to be a preacher is to speak to someone else about Christ, like Stephen did, then there are a lot more preachers than we realized. (I believe there are more than most realize)..

As for being baptized, I was think of Philip actually. What about Ananias who baptized Paul?

Also can you respond to the rest of my post about the bible making a distinction between laypersons who can't do squat but sit there and pay tithes and "preachers"?

Why isn't the "layperson" who teaches bible study a preacher? What about the Sunday School teacher? What about the person that is constantly out on the street telling people about Jesus (how often do so called preachers do that?)

[Aquila]

God had mercy on you and your friend that doesn't change the Book. That is why I am NOT a three-stepper so-called. In Acts the penitent twice recieved the HGB before they were baptized BUT they were immediately baptized. Anyone who refuses baptism in Jesus Name either did NOT recieve the genuine HGB or did not follow it. However sins in the NT dispensation are remitted ONLY in water baptism in Jesus Name for the penitent.

How can there be "mercy" without "forgiveness" (translated "remission" in the KJV)? This isn't addressing the theological question. If sin isn't forgiven until water baptism how did I and so many others receive the Holy Ghost prior to water baptism?

According to you, there we were...on our knees, yet unforgiven: repenting, weeping, sobbing, receiving the Holy Ghost, speaking in tongues,and praising God. Experientially, in applied Apostolic faith, your position is problematic. Sure, it has it's scholars who support it (some scholars believe in a hollow eart too), and like Communism it makes sense on paper...but it just doesn't jive in the trenches of real life as experienced in the lives of the redeemed.

[Aquila]

Bro. Frank Curts, Bible teacher and Supt of UPC Ohio District for many years said that men can remit sins (by baptizing someone in Jesus' name) but men cannot forgive sins.

Almost sounds like RCC doctrine, doesn't it?

The words "remission" and "forgiveness" are the same...go back to the Greek. It amazes me how we can misinterpret so much.

[Praxeas]

For the most part the PCIers or one steppers on this forum would agree w/ your post .... We all believe baptism is to be obeyed and is an visual representation and identification w/ His work.

As for calling the commands we must obey the "Apostolic Gospel" we would diverge.

To be a 3-stepper you must accept the doctrine of baptismal regeneration ... and you obviously don't/
No you DON'T have to accept baptismal regeneration

[Aquila]

Who said your sins were not forgiven?????????????? NOT I!!!!!!!

So my sins were forgiven upon repentance prior to baptism?

[Aquila]

Does that make their knowledge of the greek somehow wrong? Or are you guys saying they lied? That claim can be made of anyone...under any circumstances

There are highly intelligent scholars in both camps. Therefore it's evident men have no sure answer. It's only in the original linguistic meaning of the text.

[SDG]

No you DON'T have to accept baptismal regeneration


Oh ... Praxeas ... here you go again redefining what is a commonly accepted term for those who are of the W&S persuasion ....

Here so you don't whine all nite ...

Aquila, You have to accept that unless there is not a properly administered baptism there is no remission of sins ... one is not born of the water .... and missing the important component to being regenerated or "born again"

[Steve Epley]

Elder Epley please stay as we need you and your opinion.

Bro. Scott I rarely post anymore and I enjoy the arguing. Dan, Adino and myself have argued til he cows came home and enjoyed it. But over time the attitude has gotten worse not better toward Pentecost in general and I find myself answering in kind. Then I feel bad because I am not a rude person. This topic interested me and I thought well we will fuss this again however I find myself getting upset NOT at the arguments of the Bible but rather insulting remarks made about Apostolic preachers and doctrine. And it is the NORM here. I ponder at the name Apostolic Friends Forum? I have discussed with posters on here of the PCI mentality and enjoyed it so I am NOT speaking of difference in doctrinal stances but attitudes.

[Aquila]

I seldom post here anyone and only lurk casually and this attitude reminds me why. The prevailent attitude against the doctrine of the Apostolic church is the banner of AFF it seems. Trinitarians are exalted even con men but Apostolic preachers and the doctrine are held in repute. I said sometime back I wondered if this had become an ex-Pentecostal site and it seems more and more it has become that. Just clearly my chest. You cannot even discuss doctrine without insulting your own heritage and roots and I find myself in a 'hog-butchering' mood which I don't like. I must reconsider my involvement on this forum.

Why is it when asked simple, real life questions, and confronted with other possibilities so many of these guys crumble and split? Running isn't an answer. No one here has questoined the necessity of repentance, water baptism in Jesus name, or the infilling of the Holy Ghost in the believer's full salvation experience.

What we are asking is a theological question...when are sins forgiven? You claimed it was at baptism. I'm just asking you to give rock solid evidence for your statement in light of the fact that so many of us received the Holy Ghost well before we were baptized. Remember...PCIers are saved just as you are. We're just believing that the process may be different. The Holy Ghost experience we had even testifies to a different process.

[Aquila]

Bro. Scott I rarely post anymore and I enjoy the arguing. Dan, Adino and myself have argued til he cows came home and enjoyed it. But over time the attitude has gotten worse not better toward Pentecost in general and I find myself answering in kind. Then I feel bad because I am not a rude person. This topic interested me and I thought well we will fuss this again however I find myself getting upset NOT at the arguments of the Bible but rather insulting remarks made about Apostolic preachers and doctrine. And it is the NORM here. I ponder at the name Apostolic Friends Forum? I have discussed with posters on here of the PCI mentality and enjoyed it so I am NOT speaking of difference in doctrinal stances but attitudes.


Please forgive me if I've come off with an attitude. I'm just asking sincere questions and relating personal testimony with a tearful voice. If you're getting upset...maybe God is trying to talk to you.

Here's a question about something some have brought up here. How does your view differ from the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration? Please be specific.

But most of all...please know I appreciate you dear elder. I'm going to retire for the evening to allow you to calm down and find your spiritual footing. We can talk tomorrow.

God bless you dear brother.

[Sam]

He was wicked man wasn't he????????? That Trinitarian pastor you have now wouldn't have said nothing like that although he baptizes using Rome's formula.

Elder,
I would not say Bro. Curts was wicked.
He had lots of things said about him, lots of bad things, and lots of bad things by fellow Apostolic ministers, but I would not say he was wicked. I consider him a good man, and a wise man. But that doesn't mean I have to agree with everything he taught.

[Steve Epley]

Why is it when asked simple, real life questions, and confronted with other possibilities so many of these guys crumble and split? Running isn't an answer. No one here has questoined the necessity of repentance, water baptism in Jesus name, or the infilling of the Holy Ghost in the believer's full salvation experience.

What we are asking is a theological question...when are sins forgiven. You claimed it was at baptism. I'm just asking you to give rock solid evidence for your statement in light of the fact that so many of us received the Holy Ghost well before we were baptized. Remember...PCIers are saved just as you are. We're just believing that the process may be different.

For your information I have never ran and I have been posting and arguing since FCF. But this anti-Pentecostal attitude has finally reached a point I am fed up with. I don't know how long you have been posting since I am not here much anymore but no one has accused me of running.

[Brother Price]

The simplest answer to the whole of this is what I spoke of and realized in my last post...

Jesus Christ is God enough, sufficient enough, to save without man. If our salvation is based upon The Cross plus something else, then we have ceased being saved by His grace.

I believe that we should be baptized in Jesus' name. No man saved me. Christ saved me. His death on the Cross was enough, more than enough.

[Brother Price]

Oh, and BTW, in all these posts, no one has spoken against Pentecost. No one has come against the gifts or fruit of the Spirit. I have seen some ideas and notions challenged, and rightfully so.

There has been, IMHO, no anti-Pentecost posts in this thread.

[Steve Epley]

Elder,
I would not say Bro. Curts was wicked.
He had lots of things said about him, lots of bad things, and lots of bad things by fellow Apostolic ministers, but I would not say he was wicked. I consider him a good man, and a wise man. But that doesn't mean I have to agree with everything he taught.

Sam I never met Elder Curts and you know he was not identified in anyway with the camp I am part of. He was considered a liberal by us back then. However he served as your pastor and he didn't deserve that remark. I think this forum has made you lose your sensitivity that you once possessed? That is the problem by attending a church that actually does not preach what you believe and then daily having the faith of your youth disected on this forum. If I have misspoken forgive me.

[berkeley]

Baptismal regeneration is the belief that baptism saves you. No faith required.

[Brother Price]

For by grace are we saved through faith, and not of works. It is a gift of God, lest any man should boast.

[Aquila]

Bro. Scott I rarely post anymore and I enjoy the arguing. Dan, Adino and myself have argued til he cows came home and enjoyed it. But over time the attitude has gotten worse not better toward Pentecost in general and I find myself answering in kind. Then I feel bad because I am not a rude person. This topic interested me and I thought well we will fuss this again however I find myself getting upset NOT at the arguments of the Bible but rather insulting remarks made about Apostolic preachers and doctrine. And it is the NORM here. I ponder at the name Apostolic Friends Forum? I have discussed with posters on here of the PCI mentality and enjoyed it so I am NOT speaking of difference in doctrinal stances but attitudes.

I know I said I was going to bed...and I really am. LOL

But I wanted to say...I can tell you're not the kind of preacher so many here are talking about. Keep in mind...many of us here have been severely hurt by overly authoritarian preachers and pastors. If you can minister to the hurting...your ministry is cut out for you here.

[Steve Epley]

I know I said I was going to bed...and I really am. LOL

But I wanted to say...I can tell you're not the kind of preacher so many here are talking about. Keep in mind...many of us here have been severely hurt by overly authoritarian preachers and pastors. If you can minister to the hurting...your ministry is cut out for you here.

Aquilla not to be unkind but most of the injured on here have injured themselves. Some may have had pastors that wounded them I don't know but from what I have seen posted here they were well capable of doing some wounding on their own. I have enjoyed the Biblical discussions here they have been hot and heavy at times. But there has been this constant decline in respect for all that is counted Holy in the Apostolic church. And I find myself getting too heated NOT at the discussions but the manner. I have prayed for most of these folks during their needs and trials. But I think maybe it is time to say goodbye? I will think about this the next few days.
Everyone have a nice a nice holiday that your conscience will allow you to have.

[Scott Hutchinson]

Elder Epley if you go, I will miss you as you are a Christian gentleman.

[Brother Price]

Bro. Epley, that last post was so wrong. Most have no self inflicted wounds. This is so wrong. I have wounded many myself, and recently made all right with them.

Still love ya, but strongly disagree with you on this.

[Steve Epley]

Bro. Epley, that last post was so wrong. Most have no self inflicted wounds. This is so wrong. I have wounded many myself, and recently made all right with them.

Still love ya, but strongly disagree with you on this.

Bro. Price I recommend you not spend alot of time on here. With your problems this is NOT a good place for you. You need to find a solid Apostolic church and submit yourself. I believe you have a good heart this is not a place for you. Please do not be insulted or offended. There is no telling where you will end up doctrinally and spiritually since you are so easily influenced. Please pray about this advise.

[Brother Price]

Bro. Epley, if it was not for my brethren on here, I would have lost my mind. Sorry, but I need to stay on here. My pastor is a solid One God Apostolic that I wrongfully slandered in the past, and I apologized to. I thank God for what HE is doing in my life, and showing me what true friends are all about.

Doctrinally, this place is a hodge podge. No one has influenced me, and no one will. I am fireproof, and the flames won't ever brand me again.

Thank you for your concern, and I do appreciate it. But, what I have experienced, besides my home church, this is a great place for fun.

[Apprehended]

Are we not to be imitators of Jesus? Did he not preach the Gospel of the kingdom? Did he not tell all who came to him believing, "Thy sins be forgiven thee?" You may say to all who will look to the cross beholding the resurrected Lord, "Only believe. Thy sins are forgiven thee." Are you not authrorized to go, to stand in his stead...doing and saying IN HIS NAME...in his stead?

If you think not, perhaps you need to become a believer first.

[Brother Price]

Apprehended, there is a definite difference between fulfilling what Christ has called us to do, and becoming a remitter of sins. One can fulfill the Great Commission, but not be w remitter of sins. We cannot save anyone, and we only do as we have been called to do, lead them to Christ.

he alone can save, not man.

[Apprehended]

Apprehended, there is a definite difference between fulfilling what Christ has called us to do, and becoming a remitter of sins. One can fulfill the Great Commission, but not be w remitter of sins. We cannot save anyone, and we only do as we have been called to do, lead them to Christ.

he alone can save, not man.

You obviously did not read what I wrote.

Try again.

[Joelel]

I was thinking recently about the Catholic doctrine of confession (to a priest), which we of course know is an unscriptural practice.

However, the Catholic church feels they have biblical justification for it. The scripture they use is (John 20:22-23):

22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: 23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.
Therefore according to this argument, Roman Catholic priests, based on the authority handed down from the apostles, have the power to remit or retain sins.

Your thoughts please... How would you respond to someone who is Catholic, and defends the practice using that particular scripture?

When we lead someone to the water to be baptized their sins are being remitted in the water. John20:23: Whosoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosoever sins ye retain, they are retained

Acts2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ FOR THE REMISSION of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 2:39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call

[Joelel]

Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

Confess your faults one to an other when you sin against that person.Math.18:[15] Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
[16] But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
[17] And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
[18] Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
[19] Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.
[20] For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
[21] Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?
[22] Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven

[Aquila]

Aquilla not to be unkind but most of the injured on here have injured themselves. Some may have had pastors that wounded them I don't know but from what I have seen posted here they were well capable of doing some wounding on their own. I have enjoyed the Biblical discussions here they have been hot and heavy at times. But there has been this constant decline in respect for all that is counted Holy in the Apostolic church. And I find myself getting too heated NOT at the discussions but the manner. I have prayed for most of these folks during their needs and trials. But I think maybe it is time to say goodbye? I will think about this the next few days.
Everyone have a nice a nice holiday that your conscience will allow you to have.

I wont deny that some, if not many, have perhaps wounded themselves. However, I feel it's dangerous to pretend that I can decern between those who have been hurt and those who have hurt themselvs 100% of the time...especially without even knowing them personally. So yes, I sometimes that someone is hurting...it matters not to me who's to blame because it all comes down to sin. Either their own or an abusive pastor or spiritual leader's. I'm a healer, not a judge.

[Aquila]

Bro. Price I recommend you not spend alot of time on here. With your problems this is NOT a good place for you. You need to find a solid Apostolic church and submit yourself. I believe you have a good heart this is not a place for you. Please do not be insulted or offended. There is no telling where you will end up doctrinally and spiritually since you are so easily influenced. Please pray about this advise.

Here's a good example of wounding. You mean well...but what you are saying can hurt because it's being said openly. This may have been best said in private message so as to not place Bro. Price on the defensive.

[Aquila]

When we lead someone to the water to be baptized their sins are being remitted in the water. John20:23: Whosoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosoever sins ye retain, they are retained

Acts2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ FOR THE REMISSION of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 2:39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call


All you're doing is connecting two verses based on the translation of a specific word. You're ignoring context. And if sins are remitted in the water how do so many, including myself, have our sins forgiven at repentance and receive the Holy Ghost prior to baptism?

[Brother Price]

Here's a good example of wounding. You mean well...but what you are saying can hurt because it's being said openly. This may have been best said in private message so as to not place Bro. Price on the defensive.

Aquila, when it comes to hurting, I have received and given. Bro. Epley is sharing concern for me because he believes this forum is swaying me in my moment of weakness. The fact is, I had been dealing with the 1 vs. 3 step issue for a long time, and what Bro. Epley said gave me the light bulb effect.

If our beliefs cannot hold up to criticism, then we must reexamine our beliefs.

And, personally, I am not going to go on the defensive as I once did. Have too many other problems to make my BP go up over what someone says. :D

[Brother Price]

All you're doing is connecting two verses based on the translation of a specific word. You're ignoring context. And if sins are remitted in the water how do so many, including myself, have our sins forgiven at repentance and receive the Holy Ghost prior to baptism?

That is the $64,000 question as well, Aquila.

Do you not know that you are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you? If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him. For God's temple is holy, and you are that temple. {1Corinthians 3:16-17 ESV}

If the vessel is clean, God shall dwell therein. Many times, this is shown throughout the Acts, as when the Spirit baptizes a soul after repentance, and after those events, they are baptized in water. One must repent and confess their sins. The scriptures declare that if we repent and confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

[mizpeh]

Why is it when asked simple, real life questions, and confronted with other possibilities so many of these guys crumble and split? Running isn't an answer. No one here has questoined the necessity of repentance, water baptism in Jesus name, or the infilling of the Holy Ghost in the believer's full salvation experience.

What we are asking is a theological question...when are sins forgiven? You claimed it was at baptism. I'm just asking you to give rock solid evidence for your statement in light of the fact that so many of us received the Holy Ghost well before we were baptized. Remember...PCIers are saved just as you are. We're just believing that the process may be different. The Holy Ghost experience we had even testifies to a different process.

I may have missed it but can you give me rock solid evidence that your sins are forgiven at repentance, not just a feeling, but scriptures?

[Brother Price]

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. {1 John 1:9 ESV}

Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus, whom heaven must receive until the time for restoring all the things about which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets long ago. {Acts 3:19-21 ESV}

You have neither part nor lot in this matter, for your heart is not right before God. Repent, therefore, of this wickedness of yours, and pray to the Lord that, if possible, the intent of your heart may be forgiven you. For I see that you are in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity." {Acts 8:21-23 ESV}

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. {Ephesians 2:8-9 ESV}

The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead." {Acts 17:30-31 ESV}

[mizpeh]

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. {1 John 1:9 ESV}Context is important. This verse is written to Christians, even those who have been born again and are walking in the light

Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus, whom heaven must receive until the time for restoring all the things about which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets long ago. {Acts 3:19-21 ESV}This verse can be explained a couple of ways because I can bend it to my POV as well because it doesn't specifically say that when you repent your sins are blotted out. This verse has to agree with all the verses that teach remission of sins.

You have neither part nor lot in this matter, for your heart is not right before God. Repent, therefore, of this wickedness of yours, and pray to the Lord that, if possible, the intent of your heart may be forgiven you. For I see that you are in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity." {Acts 8:21-23 ESV}Simon was already baptized in Jesus name, therefore he didn't have to be rebaptized for the remission of sins but repent and confess this sin as in 1John 1:7

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. {Ephesians 2:8-9 ESV}Grace and faith are the means by which we are saved. Are we forgiven at belief?

The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead." {Acts 17:30-31 ESV}This verse doesn't address remission of sins.

[philjones]

You all have been around this mulberry bush so many times that the poor little bush is standing alone atop a mountain taller than everest and you all keep getting lower with every pass!

[nahkoe]

You all have been around this mulberry bush so many times that the poor little bush is standing alone atop a mountain taller than everest and you all keep getting lower with every pass!

That's just funny.

[philjones]

That's just funny.

Looks like I may have shut down the thread.... My bad!:santathumb :D

[OneAccord]

Looks like I may have shut down the thread.... My bad!:santathumb :D


If you did, thank you. But I doubt it... its got the word "doctrinal" in the thread title. The one word will prompt more "beating of the dead horse".

[berkeley]

Looks like I may have shut down the thread.... My bad!:santathumb :D

No one over the age of 32 can say 'my bad'.

[mizpeh]

Mizpeh, I perceive you desire a debate. I'm not here to debate. I simply shared what I believe about the text. You will choose to believe what you believe best explains the text. You may be right. I hope you're right. I pray you're right. I'd rather be wrong than have a confrontation with you on this. It's not essential. Mizpeh...share with me what you believe...not as a debate...but as an exchange, a sharing of opinion.

I'm sorry if I came across as confrontational.

I believe our sins are remitted when we are baptized in Jesus name. It is a circumcision of the body of sins made by the Holy Spirit and not men's hands. The blood of Jesus Christ is applied to our hearts when we are baptized. The water does nothing. We call on Jesus and He answers by washing away our sins. That is the reason I believe Jesus said the apostles had authority to remit sin.

You also used your experience as an example. Well, when I was baptized in Jesus name, I felt an overwhelming sense of peace with God under the water and afterward I felt clean on the inside. That's my experience.

I questioned the things you wrote about 1 Cor 5 because there is no mention of repentance or remission of sins in that passage. I would like to see you dig deeper in your explanation. I can see a vague comparison.

John 20 does not speak of repentance either. Nor does it limit the remitting done by the apostles to those in the church alone....that is an imposition you are making on the text.

Do you have scriptures that prove remittance happens at repentance? If you give an interpretation of the scriptures in this forum you should not be surprized to be challenged to defend your position. I was not insulting to you like others were to Bro Elpey.

[Joelel]

All you're doing is connecting two verses based on the translation of a specific word. You're ignoring context. And if sins are remitted in the water how do so many, including myself, have our sins forgiven at repentance and receive the Holy Ghost prior to baptism?

Sins are not remitted by just repenting.You must confess them also and you confess them in baptism.NOTE confess. Where do we confess our sins? The blood is applied in the water in the name of Jesus. 1 John 1:9: If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. Math.3:6: And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.
Acts10:43: To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. (Remisssion in Jesus name baptism Acts 2:38)

Blood was shed at death.Rom.6:: Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death (blood): that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5: For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death (blood), we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection

Water baptism in Jesus name remits sins or washes your sins away. Acts 22:16:And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized,and wash away thy sins,calling on the name of the Lord

[Praxeas]

I'm sorry if I came across as confrontational.

I believe our sins are remitted when we are baptized in Jesus name. It is a circumcision of the body of sins made by the Holy Spirit and not men's hands. The blood of Jesus Christ is applied to our hearts when we are baptized. The water does nothing. We call on Jesus and He answers by washing away our sins. That is the reason I believe Jesus said the apostles had authority to remit sin.

You also used your experience as an example. Well, when I was baptized in Jesus name, I felt an overwhelming sense of peace with God under the water and afterward I felt clean on the inside. That's my experience.

I questioned the things you wrote about 1 Cor 5 because there is no mention of repentance or remission of sins in that passage. I would like to see you dig deeper in your explanation. I can see a vague comparison.

John 20 does not speak of repentance either. Nor does it limit the remitting done by the apostles to those in the church alone....that is an imposition you are making on the text.

Do you have scriptures that prove remittance happens at repentance? If you give an interpretation of the scriptures in this forum you should not be surprized to be challenged to defend your position. I was not insulting to you like others were to Bro Elpey.
I know this probably does not make sense to a lot but could it be repentance and baptism are symbiotic?

[mizpeh]

I know this probably does not make sense to a lot but could it be repentance and baptism are symbiotic?

Are you saying there is no remission of sins without both, repentance and baptism since Acts 2:38 reads Repent and be baptized....?

Yes, they could. :rudolph

[Praxeas]

Are you saying there is no remission of sins without both, repentance and baptism since Acts 2:38 reads Repent and be baptized....?

Yes, they could. :rudolph
Im saying that is a possibility.

Also look at the possibility of differing ways of "forgiveness"

For example....we can be positionally "right" with God based purely what Christ has done and faith...we are deemed "justified"...in other words God does not look at our sinful condition he looks at Christ's righteousness....but we ourselves can still be carrying those sins.

So for the purpose of being justified and having the power or authority to approach a Holy God so we CAN be saved, God does not look at our own sinful condition, but because of our faith in Christ He looks at Christ instead and considers us to be without sin.

But at baptism the sins themselves are actually wiped out.

[mizpeh]

Im saying that is a possibility.

Also look at the possibility of differing ways of "forgiveness"

For example....we can be positionally "right" with God based purely what Christ has done and faith...we are deemed "justified"...in other words God does not look at our sinful condition he looks at Christ's righteousness....but we ourselves can still be carrying those sins.

So for the purpose of being justified and having the power or authority to approach a Holy God so we CAN be saved, God does not look at our own sinful condition, but because of our faith in Christ He looks at Christ instead and considers us to be without sin.

But at baptism the sins themselves are actually wiped out.

Sounds good. Do you have some scriptures to support this?

The part that confuses me is your first line: the possibility of differing ways of "forgiveness"

Forgiveness is forgiveness. And 'being right' with God is being right with God. Can you explain the differing ways of forgiveness and the different ways of being right? Do we have to be justified before we approach a holy God? Isn't God's grace through our faith in Jesus Christ his Son enough for us to approach Him?

[pastorswife]

Why is it when asked simple, real life questions, and confronted with other possibilities so many of these guys crumble and split? Running isn't an answer. No one here has questoined the necessity of repentance, water baptism in Jesus name, or the infilling of the Holy Ghost in the believer's full salvation experience.

What we are asking is a theological question...when are sins forgiven? You claimed it was at baptism. I'm just asking you to give rock solid evidence for your statement in light of the fact that so many of us received the Holy Ghost well before we were baptized. Remember...PCIers are saved just as you are. We're just believing that the process may be different. The Holy Ghost experience we had even testifies to a different process.



Here's the answer to your question!!
Some received the HG before they were Baptized. Just as Jesus forgave sins before they were Baptized in His Ministry.
Baptism for the remissions of sins not only takes care of personal offenses but also the stain of sin inherited from our father Adam.
1 Peter 3:21
Not the putting away of the filth of the flesh but the answer of a good conscience toward God.

It's not water, but blood atonement received through the evoking in the name of Jesus Christ. Water serves as the grave in the death and burial Romans 6:4
If some one hears, believes, obeys the gospel Jesus gave to the apostles their sins are remitted both personal and inherited.
If they reject the gospel their sins are retained.

[Brother Price]

pastorswife, so Jesus needs a man/woman to baptize a soul for that soul to be saved? The Cross was not good enough, so that we need a man baptizing us?

[pastorswife]

They always did in the Bible.
If the Bible is our road map that we should follow, how can we be saved with out it.

[pastorswife]

Brother Price
Jesus said He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Mark 16:16
I want to be counted in the he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved

[Praxeas]

Sounds good. Do you have some scriptures to support this?

The part that confuses me is your first line: the possibility of differing ways of "forgiveness"

Forgiveness is forgiveness. And 'being right' with God is being right with God. Can you explain the differing ways of forgiveness and the different ways of being right? Do we have to be justified before we approach a holy God? Isn't God's grace through our faith in Jesus Christ his Son enough for us to approach Him?
I explained it. Forgiven in the sense that one is rendered positionally forgiven before the sins are actually cleaned or wiped away. God SEES you as being "righteous" even though the bible says all our righteousness is as filthy rags....because God does not see YOUR actual rightouesness but he see's Christ. You are positionally right with God. Christ's righteouness is imputed to our record while we personally may still bear the taint of sins in our soul.

[Brother Price]

Brother Price
Jesus said He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Mark 16:16
I want to be counted in the he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved

May I ask then why did Jesus only say that lack of belief will ........ one's soul? Why did He not say baptism and belief?

[BoredOutOfMyMind]

You know I really need to go remit my dirty laundry .... I got bags of clothes to remit.

Don't be airing all your dirty laundry here!

:13loads

[mizpeh]

I explained it. Forgiven in the sense that one is rendered positionally forgiven before the sins are actually cleaned or wiped away. God SEES you as being "righteous" even though the bible says all our righteousness is as filthy rags....because God does not see YOUR actual rightouesness but he see's Christ. You are positionally right with God. Christ's righteouness is imputed to our record while we personally may still bear the taint of sins in our soul.

Would you say we are forgiven twice? Positionally and then at baptism when our sins forgiven (remitted)?

[mizpeh]

I explained it. Forgiven in the sense that one is rendered positionally forgiven before the sins are actually cleaned or wiped away. God SEES you as being "righteous" even though the bible says all our righteousness is as filthy rags....because God does not see YOUR actual rightouesness but he see's Christ. You are positionally right with God. Christ's righteouness is imputed to our record while we personally may still bear the taint of sins in our soul.

I understand what you are saying, but I need to be convinced of it because the Bible teaches this and not simply your say so. If you could prove your assertions with the word of God, I would be more apt to agree completely with you. Like I said, it sounds good or feasible or probable and it may be correct doctrine but I, personally, need to see this confirmed by the Bible to believe it . And I question it with what I know the Bible says and to see if it harmonizes. I'm not going to let go of what I believe is truth without a thorough examination.

You are describing justification and I'm not convinced we are justified at faith and by faith alone apart from repentance and the new birth.

I'm not trying to argue with you but would like a further explanation with scriptural proof. I believe we can approach God on the basis of faith in Christ alone without having Christ's righteousness attributed to us at that time. I don't have time to go on about Abraham believing God...gotta go to church. :christmoose

[Joelel]

pastorswife, so Jesus needs a man/woman to baptize a soul for that soul to be saved? The Cross was not good enough, so that we need a man baptizing us?

Man preaches and tells a person to be baptized,maybe you can call on the name Jesus and jump in the water and not be in the preachers arms,I don't know.The word don't teach how to do it.Maybe the preacher don't even have to say anything.One thing for sure you got to call on the name Jesus and go under the water.Did you call on the name Jesus ? Most do not.

Acts22:16: And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

[Joelel]

May I ask then why did Jesus only say that lack of belief will ........ one's soul? Why did He not say baptism and belief?


Because believe is the first step,if a person don't believe they sure are not going to be baptized.

[Joelel]

I'm sorry if I came across as confrontational.

I believe our sins are remitted when we are baptized in Jesus name. It is a circumcision of the body of sins made by the Holy Spirit and not men's hands. The blood of Jesus Christ is applied to our hearts when we are baptized. The water does nothing. We call on Jesus and He answers by washing away our sins. That is the reason I believe Jesus said the apostles had authority to remit sin.

You also used your experience as an example. Well, when I was baptized in Jesus name, I felt an overwhelming sense of peace with God under the water and afterward I felt clean on the inside. That's my experience.

I questioned the things you wrote about 1 Cor 5 because there is no mention of repentance or remission of sins in that passage. I would like to see you dig deeper in your explanation. I can see a vague comparison.

John 20 does not speak of repentance either. Nor does it limit the remitting done by the apostles to those in the church alone....that is an imposition you are making on the text.

Do you have scriptures that prove remittance happens at repentance? If you give an interpretation of the scriptures in this forum you should not be surprized to be challenged to defend your position. I was not insulting to you like others were to Bro Elpey.

I think the desciples have a part in remitting sin because they tell people to be baptized in Jesus name,but I believe the name remitts the sin,not the man.

[mizpeh]

I think the desciples have a part in remitting sin because they tell people to be baptized in Jesus name,but I believe the name remitts the sin,not the man.

Sorry, I failed to mention that I believe the blood of Jesus remits the sin. We are washed in the blood of the Lamb.We call on the name of Jesus and He answers and performs a spiritual circumcision of our hearts with the blood of Jesus. This is part of what I believe happens at baptism.

[berkeley]

pastorswife, so Jesus needs a man/woman to baptize a soul for that soul to be saved? The Cross was not good enough, so that we need a man baptizing us?

Is this a real question?


And are you going "PCI?"

[BoredOutOfMyMind]

Sorry, I failed to mention that I believe the blood of Jesus remits the sin. We are washed in the blood of the Lamb.We call on the name of Jesus and He answers and performs a spiritual circumcision of our hearts with the blood of Jesus. This is part of what I believe happens at baptism.

So you are stating the blood is applied at Baptism?

[mizpeh]

So you are stating the blood is applied at Baptism?

yes

[BoredOutOfMyMind]

yes

Can you Scripturally show how blood is applied at Baptism?

[mizpeh]

Can you Scripturally show how blood is applied at Baptism?

Why, when do you believe the blood is applied?

[pastorswife]

May I ask then why did Jesus only say that lack of belief will ........ one's soul? Why did He not say baptism and belief?

Bro Price,
Acts 2:38
Repent, and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.

The word believe isn't in that scripture...but I know I have to believe what it says to do.

[Joelel]

Sorry, I failed to mention that I believe the blood of Jesus remits the sin. We are washed in the blood of the Lamb.We call on the name of Jesus and He answers and performs a spiritual circumcision of our hearts with the blood of Jesus. This is part of what I believe happens at baptism.

Yes,amen.Blood was shed at death.Rom.6:: Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death (blood): that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5: For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death (blood), we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection

[Joelel]

Can you Scripturally show how blood is applied at Baptism?

NOTE confess. Where do we confess our sins? The blood is applied in the water in the name of Jesus. 1 John 1:9: If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. Math.3:6: And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins

[Brother Price]

Is this a real question?


And are you going "PCI?"

Yes, it is a real question.

What is PCI? If it is what I believe it is, then yes, I am more than likely going PCI on the issue.

[berkeley]

Yes, it is a real question.

What is PCI? If it is what I believe it is, then yes, I am more than likely going PCI on the issue.

Please, restate the question.

I think you need to study more before you take a position. :)

[Brother Price]

Here is the question, the one question, that I had to ask myself, as my Dad laid in the hospital bed dying...

He had repented of his sins and confessed Christ. Would God ........ my father to Hell because he was not baptized in Jesus name? If so, and we need someone to baptize us, then does not this merit that the Cross is not sufficient for salvation? If so, then how can we say we are saved by grace through faith. All these stemmed from the one question, is God unrighteous in that He would turn a man who was genuinely sorrowful for his sins and acknowledged Christ as the way, that God who is merciful would ........ him to Hell for not being baptized?

No, and I will accept no other answer but a yes or no.

The answer I came up with was simply that we are saved by Christ. His shed blood on Calvary was the grace of God shed on me, and my Dad. Our faith is what saves us. God needs no help in leading a soul to salvation. He saves, and a man baptizing a soul in water has no power to save.

If one looks for scriptural evidence, I admonish to look at Acts 10. The Spirit fell on the believers before they were baptized in water. Look specifically at verse 43, "To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins."

I have studied this, all during the time my Dad was living such a life, even in his dying days, that the nurses and doctors both said he was a joy to be around. I know what grace means, what faith means, and I know what the Bible and Spirit testifies of.

[berkeley]

Brother Price is now PCI!! Where is the welcoming committee??

[Brother Price]

Don't need a welcoming committee. Just need to share the Gospel. BTW, still believe that baptism should be done in Jesus name.

[berkeley]

Don't need a welcoming committee. Just need to share the Gospel. BTW, still believe that baptism should be done in Jesus name.

I didn't question your position on baptism. Don't feel the need to justify yourself.

do you have a myspace?

[BoredOutOfMyMind]

Here is the question, the one question, that I had to ask myself, as my Dad laid in the hospital bed dying...

He had repented of his sins and confessed Christ. Would God ........ my father to Hell because he was not baptized in Jesus name? If so, and we need someone to baptize us, then does not this merit that the Cross is not sufficient for salvation? If so, then how can we say we are saved by grace through faith. All these stemmed from the one question, is God unrighteous in that He would turn a man who was genuinely sorrowful for his sins and acknowledged Christ as the way, that God who is merciful would ........ him to Hell for not being baptized?

No, and I will accept no other answer but a yes or no.

The answer I came up with was simply that we are saved by Christ. His shed blood on Calvary was the grace of God shed on me, and my Dad. Our faith is what saves us. God needs no help in leading a soul to salvation. He saves, and a man baptizing a soul in water has no power to save.

If one looks for scriptural evidence, I admonish to look at Acts 10. The Spirit fell on the believers before they were baptized in water. Look specifically at verse 43, "To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins."

I have studied this, all during the time my Dad was living such a life, even in his dying days, that the nurses and doctors both said he was a joy to be around. I know what grace means, what faith means, and I know what the Bible and Spirit testifies of.

Not to belittle your Dad dying. Mine died Happier, not bitter, but lost. He never was baptized in Jesus Name. I hope to God I am wrong, and if so will be happy to greet him one day.

If happiness decided salvation, all heretic muslims would be saved. The ONLY way they have instant salvation is by being a martyr.

[berkeley]

The ONLY way they have instant salvation is by being a martyr.

I'm sorry, but where is that in the scriptures??

[Bro-Larry]

I understand what you are saying, but I need to be convinced of it because the Bible teaches this and not simply your say so. If you could prove your assertions with the word of God, I would be more apt to agree completely with you. Like I said, it sounds good or feasible or probable and it may be correct doctrine but I, personally, need to see this confirmed by the Bible to believe it . And I question it with what I know the Bible says and to see if it harmonizes. I'm not going to let go of what I believe is truth without a thorough examination.

You are describing justification and I'm not convinced we are justified at faith and by faith alone apart from repentance and the new birth.

I'm not trying to argue with you but would like a further explanation with scriptural proof. I believe we can approach God on the basis of faith in Christ alone without having Christ's righteousness attributed to us at that time. I don't have time to go on about Abraham believing God...gotta go to church. :christmoose

Mizpeh,

Prax is exactly right. The sins of the whole world were forgiven when Jesus died. Therefore; every sinner is carrying the guilt of sin that God is not imputing to them anymore. God Bless, BL

[Brother Price]

Not to belittle your Dad dying. Mine died Happier, not bitter, but lost. He never was baptized in Jesus Name. I hope to God I am wrong, and if so will be happy to greet him one day.

If happiness decided salvation, all heretic muslims would be saved. The ONLY way they have instant salvation is by being a martyr.

I did not speak of his happiness, but of the fruit of repentance he showed in his last days of conscience capabilities. I refuse to think that anything other than the Lord could have made such a change in my Dad. I know that he died saved, because of his faith.

Now, if one is not saved until after water baptism, how did the believers in Acts 10 receive the Holy Ghost. The Lord will not dwell in unclean vessels, and according to scripture, they had not been baptized as of yet.

Happiness does not determine our salvation, but our faith does.

[Brother Price]

I didn't question your position on baptism. Don't feel the need to justify yourself.

do you have a myspace?

I have had several. Might start a new one, unless I can remeber one of the old ones, and just revamp it.

[mizpeh]

Mizpeh,

Prax is exactly right. The sins of the whole world were forgiven when Jesus died. Therefore; every sinner is carrying the guilt of sin that God is not imputing to them anymore. God Bless, BL



You have me scratching my head in wonder!

Is the whole world saved and they just don't know it? If we were all forgiven when Jesus died, we don't even have to believe in the Son of God.

[berkeley]

You have me scratching my head in wonder!

Is the whole world saved and they just don't know it? If we were all forgiven when Jesus died, we don't even have to believe in the Son of God.

You misunderstand. Christ died for the sins of the world. That does not mean that everyone is saved. That mean that people can be forgiven when they place their faith in Jesus.

[mizpeh]

You misunderstand. Christ died for the sins of the world. That does not mean that everyone is saved. That mean that people can be forgiven when they place their faith in Jesus.

That's not what he said.

He said forgiveness happened at the cross for the whole world and sinners are walking around with guilt that God does not impute to them.

He agreed with Prax but he is not saying what Prax was said. Prax said "positional" forgiveness happens at faith. I'm asking Prax for scripture to prove it...and there are many scriptures he could use to do that.

When is Christ's righteousness imputed to us? When are we justified?

[staysharp]

Why, when do you believe the blood is applied?

The blood was applied at CALVARY two thousand years ago. The world's sins have already been remitted. Our redeemer lives! All humanity has to do is accept and have faith in what Jesus has already done and accept the work of the cross.

Baptismal regeneration is wrong. The blood is not applied at baptism, it was already applied at Calvary.

[mizpeh]

The blood was applied at CALVARY two thousand years ago. The world's sins have already been remitted. Our redeemer lives! All humanity has to do is accept and have faith in what Jesus has already done and accept the work of the cross.

Baptismal regeneration is wrong. The blood is not applied at baptism, it was already applied at Calvary.

I don't recall any of the apostles preaching "You're sins were remitted/forgiven at the cross. All you have to do is accept Christ's subsitutiary atonement and have faith in His sacrifice and you will be declared righteous."

[berkeley]

The ONLY way they have instant salvation is by being a martyr.

I'm sorry, but where is that in the scriptures??

BOOM???

[staysharp]

I don't recall any of the apostles preaching "You're sins were remitted/forgiven at the cross. All you have to do is accept Christ's subsitutiary atonement and have faith in His sacrifice and you will be declared righteous."

There's plenty. Start with Romans 10. By the way, there isn't one scripture in the new testament that condemns a man to hell if he isn't baptized. You won't find it. The apostles never condemned anyone to "hell". For some reason, OP's love being right and everybody else is wrong and lost.

[BoredOutOfMyMind]

I did not speak of his happiness, but of the fruit of repentance he showed in his last days of conscience capabilities. I refuse to think that anything other than the Lord could have made such a change in my Dad. I know that he died saved, because of his faith.

Now, if one is not saved until after water baptism, how did the believers in Acts 10 receive the Holy Ghost. The Lord will not dwell in unclean vessels, and according to scripture, they had not been baptized as of yet.

Happiness does not determine our salvation, but our faith does.

Baptism does not save us. Disregard of the commandmant to be baptized will cause many to miss out for the sin of disobedience. Is it any different for someone to be baptized at all? Don't change so quickly all of your beliefs Bro Price.

[berkeley]

Baptism does not save us. Disregard of the commandmant to be baptized will cause many to miss out for the sin of disobedience. Is it any different for someone to be baptized at all? Don't change so quickly all of your beliefs Bro Price.

I can understand why he would change his beliefs now. If any time I would have changed them was when grandpa died. But, I didn't.
Now I'm just in between everything, on a journey of sorts.

[staysharp]

Baptism does not save us. Disregard of the commandmant to be baptized will cause many to miss out for the sin of disobedience. Is it any different for someone to be baptized at all? Don't change so quickly all of your beliefs Bro Price.

Disobey whom? This is the question. The great sin of disobedience. God is not a respecter of persons. He doesn't require something out of me that he won't require out of you.

What is required is faith. Faith in what Jesus did. Baptism should be exercised, but you have absolutely no scripture that says...he that is not baptized will not be saved.

[Admin]

The blood was applied at CALVARY two thousand years ago. The world's sins have already been remitted. Our redeemer lives! All humanity has to do is accept and have faith in what Jesus has already done and accept the work of the cross.

Baptismal regeneration is wrong. The blood is not applied at baptism, it was already applied at Calvary.

There's plenty. Start with Romans 10. By the way, there isn't one scripture in the new testament that condemns a man to hell if he isn't baptized. You won't find it. The apostles never condemned anyone to "hell". For some reason, OP's love being right and everybody else is wrong and lost.

Staysharp, we are an Apostolic Board here.

There is a thread in the Debate room for Universal Salvation.

As to the bolded-
We ask that you simply post with an appropriate attitude, and debate the doctrine and belief, and not post personal attacks against the persons character or person. As with the rest of the forum, Admin reserves the right to edit, infract, or ban, and take any action that the admin on duty deems necessary.

[berkeley]

BOOM!!!

[staysharp]

I am apostolic, its the message the apostles preached. Do you take offense to what I have said? Please prove me wrong scripturally. I'm not preaching a different gospel. I made a statement of fact scripturally. Tell me a scripture that sends a person to hell if they are not baptized? I want to know?

[BoredOutOfMyMind]

I can understand why he would change his beliefs now. If any time I would have changed them was when grandpa died. But, I didn't.
Now I'm just in between everything, on a journey of sorts.

If you cannot believe this for someone, how can you ever think of conversion for someone who is lost. You don't believe it is needed for men to obey Scripture.

Again, I hope I am wrong and that my Dad will make it to heaven. I know that to disobey caused the fall of mankind in the beginning.

[HeavenlyOne]

I am apostolic, its the message the apostles preached. Do you take offense to what I have said? Please prove me wrong scripturally. I'm not preaching a different gospel. I made a statement of fact scripturally. Tell me a scripture that sends a person to hell if they are not baptized? I want to know?

Mark 16:16.

[berkeley]

Mark 16:16.

Apparently baptism is not a command... only believing is! :jolly

[HeavenlyOne]

Apparently baptism is not a command... only believing is! :jolly

One has to not only believe but also be baptised to be saved. That's the command.

It's redundant to include baptism with the 'he that believeth not' portion, as one who doesn't believe won't be getting baptised anyway.

But the first part mentions both, and it says AND, not OR.

But there are those who want to ignore the obvious.....LOL!

[berkeley]

One has to not only believe but also be baptised to be saved. That's the command.

It's redundant to include baptism with the 'he that believeth not' portion, as one who doesn't believe won't be getting baptised anyway.

But the first part mentions both, and it says AND, not OR.

But there are those who want to ignore the obvious.....LOL!

I agree...

[HeavenlyOne]

I think sharpy went to bed!

[Praxeas]

One has to not only believe but also be baptised to be saved. That's the command.

It's redundant to include baptism with the 'he that believeth not' portion, as one who doesn't believe won't be getting baptised anyway.

But the first part mentions both, and it says AND, not OR.

But there are those who want to ignore the obvious.....LOL!
Hey, just ignore him....sharpy is just being obtuse hahahaha........just kidding:penguin

[HeavenlyOne]

Hey, just ignore him....sharpy is just being obtuse hahahaha........just kidding:penguin

Oh, shucks! I was hoping for a good Biblical argument!!!

[TRFrance]

Every place a baptism is recorded a preacher was involved in Acts.
The command to baptize was given to preachers. Mt. 28:19
Not sure about that one, bro. Who says a person who is not a preacher cannot baptize , or that such baptism would be invalid? If a young man, for example, is called to preach, but hasn't yet preached his first sermon, are we to say he cant baptize anyone. On what basis would we say if someone hasn't preached in the church pulpit they're not authorized to baptize? Or what about someone who has given many bible studies to sinners, but has never "preached"? Can they not baptize? How do we draw that line?

I guess you have a passage where a woman baptized?
I think it might be a bit of an overreach to say that if a woman baptizes someone the baptism is not scripturally valid.

17 professors agreed ... you've got us now .... how many are Catholic???? lol.

That's so true...the vast majority of them most likely believe that the doctrine of the Trinity is an essential Christian doctrine. LOL
Not sure how much that really matters. I think we all use reference works by Trinitarians don't we? (Strong's, lexicons, Bible encyclopedias, etc) So that's neither here nor there when it comes to the breaking down a word from the original Greek /Hebrew. We can still use that information as part of rightly the dividing the word, and coming to the proper conclusions on doctrinal matters.

Bro. Frank Curts, Bible teacher and Supt of UPC Ohio District for many years said that men can remit sins (by baptizing someone in Jesus' name) but men cannot forgive sins.
Almost sounds like RCC doctrine, doesn't it?
He was wicked man wasn't he????????? That Trinitarian pastor you have now wouldn't have said nothing like that although he baptizes using Rome's formula.

Sam... you're Oneness, and your pastor is Trinitarian?
Am I understanding this right? (Just curious)

I seldom post here anyone and only lurk casually and this attitude reminds me why. The prevalent attitude against the doctrine of the Apostolic church is the banner of AFF it seems. Trinitarians are exalted even con men but Apostolic preachers and the doctrine are held in repute. I said sometime back I wondered if this had become an ex-Pentecostal site and it seems more and more it has become that. Just clearly my chest. You cannot even discuss doctrine without insulting your own heritage and roots and I find myself in a 'hog-butchering' mood which I don't like. I must reconsider my involvement on this forum.

I hear you 100% Bro Steve. I does seem like there is a strong, or at least very vocal sentiment here against original Apostolic doctrine. The PCI folks and the ex-apostolics seem to be a lot more vocal and vociferous than those who hold to proper Apostolic doctrine. It has caused me to spend a lot of time browsing other Apostolic boards and websites lately, since I often just get tired of head-butting with other folks on here.

I would say though, that your wisdom is quite valuable and well respected on this site. I hope you continue to stay involved here at AFF, as aggravating as it can be sometimes.

[A.W. Bowman]

Considering that this entire issue seems to focuse on baptism. And, given that we have so many who are knowledgeable on the subject.

Pray tell us, how John the Baptist and the Apostles baptized people? How did Paul, Peter, etc. actually do it? How was this accomplished on the day of Pentecost, with the 3,000?

The mikvah was a Jewish ritual - how did they do it?

The fact that there are no instructions for this ritual in the Bible, that should, in its self, give us a clue.

[TRFrance]

Considering that this entire issue seems to focus on baptism. And, given that we have so many who are knowledgeable on the subject.


Well, that's part of the issue thats not really even settled.
(i.e. Was Jesus referring to remission in baptism, or in settings apart from baptism?)

I'm not convinced that Jesus was speaking in terms of baptism, but I can understand how some would. It does seem as if the single strongest case where we can see God allowing man to be in any way involved in the process of "remission" is as it involves baptism. (Acts 2:38/ Acts 22:16 etc)

Apart from that context, remission of sins is exclusively the domain of God only and needs/allows no participation from man; and I don't believe God would allow man to get involved in something that is His divine right... which is what makes the passage (John 20;22-23) such an enigma.

-----
As far as possible alternative applications of this particular passage....

**As has been mentioned previously... Jesus also gave the church the power to put out a rebellious member. I this case, as long as the disfellowshipped member remains in in rebellion he is not in good standing with God either, but when they accept him back, God also accepts him. Hence his sins are retained until his church leadership restores him.

(Matt 18:15-18)
15 “Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’
17 And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.
18 “Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

** We see where the apostle Paul requires the Corintian church to deliver a disobedient brother to Satan, for his willful sinfulness.
(1 Cor 5:5) "To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus."
But he also requests that the acccept him back in good standing after he repents.
(2 Cor 2:6-11) "6 The punishment inflicted on him by the majority is sufficient for him.
7 Now instead, you ought to forgive and comfort him, so that he will not be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow.
8 I urge you, therefore, to reaffirm your love for him.
9 The reason I wrote you was to see if you would stand the test and be obedient in everything.
10 If you forgive anyone, I also forgive him. And what I have forgiven—if there was anything to forgive—I have forgiven in the sight of Christ for your sake,
11 in order that Satan might not outwit us. For we are not unaware of his schemes."
** Then we also see how Paul said he delivered 2 men to Satan for blaspheming 1 Tim 1:20
"Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme."
---

Pray tell us, how John the Baptist and the Apostles baptized people? How did Paul, Peter, etc. actually do it? How was this accomplished on the day of Pentecost, with the 3,000?
The mikvah was a Jewish ritual - how did they do it?

The fact that there are no instructions for this ritual in the Bible, that should, in its self, give us a clue.

The mode of baptism is something that is largely a settled issue in most pentecostal/apostolic churches. The evidence is overwhelming that baptism is by immersion, as was practiced in the NT and first century church. Feel free to browse around. I'm sure that that info is fairly well documented here, as well as other apostolic websites.

[Sam]

...
Sam... you're Oneness, and your pastor is Trinitarian?
Am I understanding this right? (Just curious)
...


I recently answered that in another thread but I will repeat it here.

Someone asked me what organization I belonged to
This was my response:

I go to a trinity Pentecostal church named Hamilton Dream Center. Their web site is
http://www.hamiltondreamcenter.com/
The pastor is a Rhema graduate and is ordained through Rhema and also through a group called WME (World Missionary Evangelism) whose web site is
http://www.wmeinc.org/
I am ordained in one of the organizations that calls itself the Church of Jesus Christ. Their web site is
http://www.angelfire.com/tn3/cojci/
Some times the site takes a while to load. You will find my name listed under the Ohio ministers and also alphabetically under Ellis. You will also see my web site listed in their links. My website needs work. Some of my links no longer work.

Then someone asked me how I could go to a trinity Pentecostal church and this was my answer:

For several years I have felt like I cannot in good conscience be part of a local assembly which teaches that folks who have not been baptized in Jesus' name and who have not spoken with tongues are not justified/saved/regenerated.

We stopped going to an ALJC church in the late nineteen seventies when the pastor declared in his Sunday night sermon, "The Bible says that a man is supposed to be clean shaven." I thought to myself, "What am I doing here? How can I sit here and listen to stuff like this? How can I be a part of this? Something is wrong with what we have become." The emphasis on facial hair and on hair length for men and women just turned me off. Also, at that time our pastor was leaning toward the UPC and I was afraid he might join them. At one time he asked me what I thought about the UPC and I guess I shocked him when I compared the organization to the Mafia and to the Teamsters Union. At that time there were two UPC churches in this area plus some from other organizations but I just felt like I could not be part of them either.

So, here I am, a Jesus' Name Pentecostal going to a Trinity Pentecostal church. How do I do that? Well, for one thing I am what we call a "one-stepper" here on the forum so, in my opinion, anyone who has taken that "one step" of faith in Jesus Christ is saved and is my brother or sister. As far as baptism, well, I believe that baptism should be only for a repentant believer, should be by immersion, and the name of Jesus should be mentioned, but I realize not all Christians believe that. I can accept some of my brothers and sisters who have been sprinkled, or who have had water poured on their heads three times, or who have been immersed in the FS&HG (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) formula, or who have been baptized in Jesus' name with or without the titles of Lord and/or Christ added. I attend a local church and a couple prayer meetings in other churches where folks have been baptized in the Spirit (and I believe they have been baptized in the REAL Holy Ghost) so I am around folks who speak with tongues. My personal belief is that hair length, sleeve length, clothing styles, radio, tv, internet and a host of other stuff like that are of secondary importance and are a matter of personal opinion and conviction so I stay out of discussions like that. I doubt if many trinitarians really believe in "three gods." We all commonly believe in one God who has revealed Himself as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and we leave it at that.

So, that's how I can go to a "trinity" church and accept the folks there.

Then someone said I wasn’t really a Jesus Name Pentecostal.
This was my reply to that:

I consider myself a Jesus' Name Pentecostal because:

1. I'm Pentecostal because I have received the Holy Ghost Baptism as many of the members of the first century church did in Acts chapter 2.

2. I'm Jesus' name because I believe that we are authorized by Jesus to use His name as we:
pray
heal the sick,
cast out demons,
baptize

To borrow someone else's statement of faith, this seems to summarize what I believe:

... in one God, revealed as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

... that our Lord Jesus Christ was begotten, not created, very God of very God, truly God, truly Man. He was born of the Virgin Mary, lived a sinless life, died a vicarious and atoning death for the sins of the world, was resurrected bodily for our justification, and now reigns in glory until all things be put under His feet.

... in the absolute inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, given by the Holy Spirit without error, as He moved upon holy men of old. Furthermore, ... that the church has no authority to establish doctrine or practice contrary to these same Scriptures, which were subsequently accepted as canon by the early Christian Church.

... that man was made in the image of God and is the crown of creation. He is now, by reason of the fall, spiritually depraved and alienated from His Creator. Apart from God's grace he has no ability to attain to his high calling.

... that justification is by grace through faith in our Lord's sacrifice on Calvary.

... that all of God's people are to be buried with Christ in the waters of baptism, subsequent to conversion. While we freely embrace those of contrary opinion, we feel that this rite is scripturally administered "in the name of the Lord Jesus."

... that the Holy Spirit indwells all believers, conforming them to the image of Jesus Christ.

... that the baptism in the Holy Spirit is an enduement of powers subsequent to conversion, given by God to anoint the believer for sanctification and evangelism. It is our understanding that the supernatural charisms of the Holy Spirit are active within the body of Christ until the coming of the Lord. Furthermore, ... the development of these charismatic gifts ought to be encouraged under the guidance of local church authorities.

... in the Holy Christian Church, imperfectly represented on Earth by the various Christian institutions. Her unity is spiritual, her culture diverse and transitional, her mission eternal.

... that the calling of Apostle, Prophet, Evangelist, Pastor and Teacher are functional within the Body of Christ until the Lord's return. Furthermore, these ministries are gifts to the church for the purpose of equipping the saints for the work of ministry, that the Body of Christ be edified.

... the identity of the Body of Christ on the Earth is primarily perceived through the local church. While encouraging the voluntary association of local churches, and recognizing the need of consensus on matters of fundamental doctrine and conduct, we strongly confess the local church to be sovereign and autonomous.

... in the right of local churches and ministries to form temporal institutions to assist them in carrying out the work of God. At the same time, we reject sectarianism and divisiveness as great evils.

... in the priesthood of the believer. That is to say all people born of God have equal status before, and direct access to their Lord.

... in the spiritual unity of all who are born of God. We confess even those with whom we disagree, those who do not confess us, and others whom we exclude because of our unwillful ignorance.

... that those who are called by the name of Christ should depart from iniquity. Understanding that salvation from the penalty of sin only begins the process of redemption, we acknowledge that one work of the Holy Spirit is to create in us the character of Christ.

... in the literal second coming of our Lord, the literal rule of Christ upon Earth, the resurrection of the regenerate to eternal life and the unregenerate to eternal damnation, and the ultimate victory of the eternal Kingdom of God.

[A.W. Bowman]

Jim - I knew there was something about you I loved! Thanks.

[TRFrance]

OK
I appreciate the explanation, Sam

Just one more question on that if I may... how does the pastor baptize? does he have a preference one way or the other?

[Sam]

OK
I appreciate the explanation, Sam

Just one more question on that if I may... how does the pastor baptize? does he have a preference one way or the other?

I have seen three men in our local assembly baptize at different times. Each one (the senior pastor, the youth pastor, and an elder) used the traditional "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost" formula. Even though our pastor is a Rhema graduate, he does not use the formula advocated by the late Kenneth Hagin which would use both the name of Jesus and the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost words.

[A.W. Bowman]

But, there in lies the problem. We have yet to hear from anyone who knows how baptism was conducted by the initial church. What I have heard and read, so far is mostly supposition and church tradition.

Baptism is instructed to be performed - yes.

By immersion - yes.

In Jesus' Name - a conditional yes.

Everything else seems to be guess work.

Surely there will be one among this assembly who will know (or will quickly learn) what the ritual of mikvah is, why it is performed, and who is involved in the process and the extent of their different roles.

Remember, this is a Jewish custom, not some Greek or Roman observance. Then there is the question: Why is there no example given for observing the "correct" baptismal process? There is no step one, step two, etc. There are no ritual words to be intoned, etc. This event is absolutely critical to one's salvation, according to doctrine, so where are the instructions in order to ensure we get it "right"?

Or, are we simply missing something?

[TRFrance]

But, there in lies the problem. We have yet to hear from anyone who knows how baptism was conducted by the initial church. What I have heard and read, so far is mostly supposition and church tradition.

Baptism is instructed to be performed - yes.

By immersion - yes.

In Jesus' Name - a conditional yes.

Everything else seems to be guess work.

Surely there will be one among this assembly who will know (or will quickly learn) what the ritual of mikvah is, why it is performed, and who is involved in the process and the extent of their different roles.

Remember, this is a Jewish custom, not some Greek or Roman observance. Then there is the question: Why is there no example given for observing the "correct" baptismal process? There is no step one, step two, etc. There are no ritual words to be intoned, etc. This event is absolutely critical to one's salvation, according to doctrine, so where are the instructions in order to ensure we get it "right"?

Or, are we simply missing something?

Why do we need a step one, step two... etc?? We dip them into the water according to the NT pattern and 1st century practice.
What specific words do you want us to "intone"? The scripture specifies baptism into the name of Jesus, therefore His name is invoked verbally upon immersion.

Pardon me for asking this in a facetious manner, but what exactly is your point here?... that because none of us have videotape [with audio] showing an actual 1st century baptism, then we don't really know what to do today as far as baptism is concerned?

If that is not your point, then what exactly are you getting at here?

If you think we might be missing something... then what exactly might that be? It seems to me that you're imagining a problem where there is none.

[A.W. Bowman]

By TRFrance: Why do we need a step one, step two... etc?? We dip them into the water according to the NT pattern and 1st century practice.
What specific words do you want us to "intone"? The scripture specifies baptism into the name of Jesus, therefore His name is invoked verbally upon immersion.

Pardon me for asking this in a facetious manner, but what exactly is your point here?... that because none of us have videotape [with audio] showing an actual 1st century baptism, then we don't really know what to do today as far as baptism is concerned?

If that is not your point, then what exactly are you getting at here?

If you think we might be missing something... then what exactly might that be? It seems to me that you're imagining a problem where there is none.


You have identified a major difficulty. Thank you. What was the N.T. pattern and 1st century practice? They did not baptize in the same manner as we do today. At least that much is clear from history.

We Oneness folks are a real stickler for getting everything "just right", while claiming that everyone else is missing the mark. That is why we have so many organizations and in less than a hundred years have created independent churches beyond count. So, I am looking for a definitive answer to the ritual of baptism that we all believe in and cannot seem to agree on.

Why do we have to have a step one and two, and etc.? We don't, but look at the judgments we render against those who don't get the words just right, or don't get the immersion process just right. So, I am asking, where did we get the "right" process that not all of us use or use to day?

For example, some folks will invoked the name of Jesus verbally upon immersion, some before immersion, and some after immersion. Some will say it three times and some will dunk three times, some will include some titles, and some will not, etc.. I have seen broken fellowship over such issues. Actually, what I was also bringing into focus is that there might be a few among us who know and understand exactly what is going on during the baptism process.

I was (and still am) hoping that someone will step up and explain the process and its purpose. We set such store by doing it just right - so, how does one know that they have done it correctly? This question only become important when confronted with other believers who baptize differently than we do - and claim that they are doing "correctly" according to their understanding of scripture. So, is everyone who is doing it differently still getting it "right", or is the only one "right way", or are there several "right” ways? How many people have had to be baptized again because they got it wrong the first time, or perhaps even the second time?

A simple dictionary definition of baptism conveys neither the cultural nor religious significance of the ritual of baptism. What does it accomplish and how does it do it? Why was it instituted in the first place?

Now, if it doesn't really matter how baptism is done, then there should no heated arguments over what it is or how to do it! Right? There is no reason for this thread to even exist, Right? Much less, requiring 25 or so pages!

In an earlier post, I mentioned that for an event we believe to be so critical to our salvation, it is remarkable that God did not leave clear instructions on how the process was to be conducted. I also noted that this omission, in and of its self, should be a clue to us. A clue to what? Well, that has yet to be determined. It might be like the “Sinner’s Prayer” that we down play so much. There is NO Sinner’s Prayer in the Bible – none! Yet, have any of us ever tried repenting of a sin without prayer? Not even a sinner can repent without prayer! Granted, there is more to salvation than a “simple prayer”. The point being, however, is that we are quick to judge and slow to think.What prayer did any of us say when we "first" came to Christ and repented?

Finally, as a passing thought, what this entire thread demonstrates is that we are actually discussing a subject we really know precious little about. Me? I guess I will I will go and study awhile.

[Felicity]

Thank you. What was the N.T. pattern and 1st century practice? They did not baptize in the same manner as we do today. At least that much is clear from history. Hey there bro. Could you please explain how they baptized differently than the way most of us do today?

Thanks. :)

[A.W. Bowman]

Hey there bro. Could you please explain how they baptized differently than the way most of us do today?

Thanks. :)

Yes, sister. But as noted, I think I will study a little more before sharing my ignorance in public. LOLOL

[TRFrance]

You have identified a major difficulty. Thank you. What was the N.T. pattern and 1st century practice? They did not baptize in the same manner as we do today. At least that much is clear from history.

Hey there bro. Could you please explain how they baptized differently than the way most of us do today?
Thanks. :)
Yes, sister. But as noted, I think I will study a little more before sharing my ignorance in public. LOLOL

You came on the board and made a bold statement that the first century church baptized differently than we do today. But when asked to explain, you have to go "study"? How about this: maybe its best to get your facts lined up before you come and make statements you cant support. Seems pretty basic to me.
So, I am asking, where did we get the "right" process that not all of us use or use to day?

For example, some folks will invoked the name of Jesus verbally upon immersion, some before immersion, and some after immersion. Some will say it three times and some will dunk three times, some will include some titles, and some will not, etc..

... how does one know that they have done it correctly?


I don't know what churches you're referring to, or what your own religious affiliation is . But keep in mind this is a Oneness board here. I don't know how many oneness churches you know of that "say it three times, dunk three times, etc".

Oneness churches, despite all their differences, almost universally agree that it should be done by immersion, and with the name of Jesus invoked at that time. Anything else is superfluous. Some prefer to say "in [or 'into'] the name of Jesus", others "in the name of the Lord Jesus" , "...Lord Jesus Christ" , or other variations. Frankly I don't think it matters as much as you seem to think it does. The common denominator there is the NAME - Jesus. If others want to add "Lord", "Christ", etc, I don't think it should matter. Frankly, after 2000 years, there is probably not going to be any new ground broken on this issue. The bible doesn't give us the specific wording for the entire baptism ceremony, except that we understand the name Jesus should be used. That is the critical factor. You can study all you want, but if you decide to focus on the pages of the bible, the New Testament pattern is very clear.


Now, if it doesn't really matter how baptism is done, then there should no heated arguments over what it is or how to do it! Right? There is no reason for this thread to even exist, Right? Much less, requiring 25 or so pages!

Well no-one has said here that it doesn't matter how baptism is done... and no-one here was discussing how baptism is done. That wasn't even what this thread is all about. The topic dealt with "remitting or retaining" sins (as referred to in John 20:22-23). Some here have surmised that this had to do with baptism, while others disagreed. The baptismal mode or formula is not an issue here. Obviously it is a major issue in your mind, which is fine I guess, but there's no confusion here on that, especially not on this particular thread.

Its clear you've made this a "pet doctrine" of yours. If you have any particular insights on the topic, you're certainly more than welcome to share. But for now, all we're hearing from you is speculative questioning, and no real substance.


... we are actually discussing a subject we really know precious little about. Me? I guess I will I will go and study awhile.
Go ahead and study brother, if you insist. Before you plunge your energies into trying to figure out the "correct way of baptism"... take note of Hebrews 6:21 Therefore, leaving the discussion of the elementary principles of Christ, let us go on to perfection, not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, 2 of the doctrine of baptisms, of laying on of hands, of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.
Do you see that, brother? We should leave the elementary things and move on to greater things. There is a point where we just have to say "This is what baptism is. Now let's move on". In your case, rather than building the house, you want to go back and lay the foundation again.

You seem to think that after all these eons of time, and millions of believers baptized , we haven't been doing it right, then I would respectfully suggest you are very much barking up the wrong tree here, and might be wasting too much time on this issue. As a matter of fact I even think too many Oneness churches talk this issue to death. If Oneness folks spent less time arguing about baptism, and focusing more on other things such as evangelism, spiritual gifts, endtime prophecy, etc... the church would be much farther ahead than it now is.

Peace 2 u.

[A.W. Bowman]

You seem to think that after all these eons of time, and millions of believers baptized , we haven't been doing it right, then I would respectfully suggest you are very much barking up the wrong tree here, and might be wasting too much time on this issue. As a matter of fact I even think too many Oneness churches talk this issue to death. If Oneness folks spent less time arguing about baptism, and focusing more on other things such as evangelism, spiritual gifts, endtime prophecy, etc... the church would be much farther ahead than it now is.

Peace 2 u.

Hit a nerve, did I?

Actually, I never said that any one was "doing it wrong". Simply brought up the issue for reexamination in light of the direction the thread had taken.

The energy of, "If Oneness folks spent less time arguing about baptism, and focusing..." seems to be coming from another quarter than from me. But, you have taken me to task, and "put me in my place", at it were. I trust everyone feels much better for the exchange.

And, why would anyone be upset over my exchange with Felicity, if she isn't? What would another individual know concerning our exchange that they haven't shared with us? Yet, being the first one to actually express an interest in expanding her understanding of a spiritual subject - and without going through any of my personal theological "filters", I accommodated her request.

For those who simply insist in being justified in their own eyes, I have no problem with allowing them remain so. As noted earlier, we are fast to judge and slow to think.

Shalom Alichem

[Felicity]

And, why would anyone be upset over my exchange with Felicity, if she isn't? Yeah, why would they? LOL.

I'm looking forward to the info - honestly - because I thought we baptized the same way they did in the NT. Full immersion in water in the name of Jesus.

[A.W. Bowman]

Yeah, why would they? LOL.

I'm looking forward to the info - honestly - because I thought we baptized the same way they did in the NT. Full immersion in water in the name of Jesus.

Did you checkout the sites I PM'ed you?

[Felicity]

Did you checkout the sites I PM'ed you?No, not yet.

I'm supposed to be packing. I better get at it. TB warned me if I didn't get some work done he'd unplug me here or tan my hide.

I don't want that to happen. Good grief! :jolly

[nathan_slatter]

You have identified a major difficulty. Thank you. What was the N.T. pattern and 1st century practice? They did not baptize in the same manner as we do today. At least that much is clear from history.

We Oneness folks are a real stickler for getting everything "just right", while claiming that everyone else is missing the mark. That is why we have so many organizations and in less than a hundred years have created independent churches beyond count. So, I am looking for a definitive answer to the ritual of baptism that we all believe in and cannot seem to agree on.

Why do we have to have a step one and two, and etc.? We don't, but look at the judgments we render against those who don't get the words just right, or don't get the immersion process just right. So, I am asking, where did we get the "right" process that not all of us use or use to day?

For example, some folks will invoked the name of Jesus verbally upon immersion, some before immersion, and some after immersion. Some will say it three times and some will dunk three times, some will include some titles, and some will not, etc.. I have seen broken fellowship over such issues. Actually, what I was also bringing into focus is that there might be a few among us who know and understand exactly what is going on during the baptism process.

I was (and still am) hoping that someone will step up and explain the process and its purpose. We set such store by doing it just right - so, how does one know that they have done it correctly? This question only become important when confronted with other believers who baptize differently than we do - and claim that they are doing "correctly" according to their understanding of scripture. So, is everyone who is doing it differently still getting it "right", or is the only one "right way", or are there several "right” ways? How many people have had to be baptized again because they got it wrong the first time, or perhaps even the second time?

A simple dictionary definition of baptism conveys neither the cultural nor religious significance of the ritual of baptism. What does it accomplish and how does it do it? Why was it instituted in the first place?

Now, if it doesn't really matter how baptism is done, then there should no heated arguments over what it is or how to do it! Right? There is no reason for this thread to even exist, Right? Much less, requiring 25 or so pages!

In an earlier post, I mentioned that for an event we believe to be so critical to our salvation, it is remarkable that God did not leave clear instructions on how the process was to be conducted. I also noted that this omission, in and of its self, should be a clue to us. A clue to what? Well, that has yet to be determined. It might be like the “Sinner’s Prayer” that we down play so much. There is NO Sinner’s Prayer in the Bible – none! Yet, have any of us ever tried repenting of a sin without prayer? Not even a sinner can repent without prayer! Granted, there is more to salvation than a “simple prayer”. The point being, however, is that we are quick to judge and slow to think.What prayer did any of us say when we "first" came to Christ and repented?

Finally, as a passing thought, what this entire thread demonstrates is that we are actually discussing a subject we really know precious little about. Me? I guess I will I will go and study awhile.

Man, I like you!