Re: New Doctrine Emerges: NOT Forgiven at Repentan
 

Dan, I've never denied that forgiveness is linked with repentance. It just doesn't happen AT repentance. :)

Re: New Doctrine Emerges: NOT Forgiven at Repentan
 

I know Mizpeh. Neither has Bernard or Segraves ... no serious bible scholar can hold this view, IMO and hold any credibility.

I started a thread on the aphesis issue ....

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...ad.php?t=18356

Re: New Doctrine Emerges: NOT Forgiven at Repentan
 

I responded to the same thread you left on CARM. Not interested.

Your opinion is your opinion. Many serious Bible scholars are cessationists. Just their opinion as well. :)

Re: New Doctrine Emerges: NOT Forgiven at Repentan
 

AMEN

Go Bratgirl
=)

Re: New Doctrine Emerges: NOT Forgiven at Repentan
 

Staysharp said:


Then later said:

Why would I be offended? Just because you called me a heretic?

Oh, well. After the way which they call heresy so worship I the God of my fathers, believeing all that is written in the Law and in the Prophets.

Re: New Doctrine Emerges: NOT Forgiven at Repentan
 

The argument is more than "for" as Daniel Segraves points out in a response to Cal Beisner
http://danielsegraves.blogspot.com/2...-beisners.html

Cal:
“Acts 2:38 does not teach that baptism is indispensable to remission of sins,(a) Grammatically, the command to be baptized is not connected with the promise of remission of sins. (i) The Greek verb translated repent is second person plural and in the active voice. (ii) The Greek verb translated be baptized is third person singular and in the passive voice. (iii) The Greek pronoun translated your (in “remission of your sins”) is second person plural. (iv) Therefore, the grammatical connection is between repent and for the remission of your sins, not between be baptized and for the remission of your sins” (page 58).

DS
In response, I would like to point out that there are two things to consider in interpreting Acts 2:38. First is the textual evidence; second is the grammar.

As it relates to the textual evidence, the Textus Receptus (Received Text), upon which the King James Version and the New King James Version are based, does not include the second “your” (humon), nor does the Majority Text. The critical text followed by most modern English translations does include the second “your” in the phrase “for the remission of your sins.” This is interesting, for the critical text usually prefers the shorter reading. In this case, the longer reading is adopted by the critical text on the view that the shorter reading (without the second “your”) is “conformation to the solemn formula of the Gospels, not an original shorter reading” (see Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament [Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, Corrected Edition, 1975], 301).

If the Textus Receptus and/or Majority Text reflect the original reading, there is no textual basis to suggest that the phrase “remission of sins” is connected only to repentance. But if the critical text reflects the original reading, does that connect “remission of your sins” only to repentance?

Grammatical

Petros [Peter] de [then] pros [to] autous [them: accusative masculine third person plural pronoun] Metanoesate [repent: aorist active imperative second person plural verb] phesin [said: present active indicative third person singular verb] kai [and] baptistheto [let be baptized: aorist passive imperative third person singular verb] hekastos [each: nominative masculine singular pronominal] humon [of you: genitive second person plural pronoun] epi [in: dative preposition] toi [the: dative neuter singular definite article] onomati [name: dative neuter singular noun] Iesou [Jesus: genitive masculine singular noun] Christou [Christ: genitive masculine singular noun] eis [for: accusative preposition] aphesin [forgiveness: accusative feminine singular noun] ton [of the: genitive feminine plural definite article] hamartion [sins: genitive feminine plural noun] humon [of you: genitive second person plural pronoun]. NOTE: This follows the critical Greek text; the second humon is not in the Textus Receptus or the Majority Text; it is found in the critical text].

Critique of Cal's own argument being not to sure himself
One wonders if he is completely convinced by his own argument, for he goes on to write: “…even if water baptism is connected with remission of sins, the sense is not that baptism is in order to obtain but rather with reference to (i.e., as a sign of, or because of) the remission of our sins. In other words, eis would denote only that baptism is related somehow to the remission of sins; it would not tell us the nature of that relationship” (page 59).

It seems that Beisner is willing to allow eis to mean “in order to obtain” only if the phrase “for the remission of sins” is connected exclusively to repentance. If it is connected to baptism, he is willing to allow only the meaning “with reference to.”

If the Critical Text is in view with it's second Humon
Beisner’s argument is based on the fact that in Greek grammar, pronouns must agree with their antecedents in number. If the antecedent is plural, the pronoun must be plural. Since the command to repent is in the second person plural, and since the command to be baptized is in the third person singular, he reasons that the pronoun “your” in the phrase “for the remission of your sins” must have the command to repent as its antecedent.

His argument fails on a simple point: The pronoun “your” [humon] in the phrase “for the remission of your sins” is the second pronoun “your” [humon] in the sentence. The first humon appears in all Greek texts in the phrase “let each of you [humon] be baptized.” In this phrase, the antecedent of humon is the phrase “let each…be baptized.” In other words, even though the command to be baptized is in the third person singular, the plural humon is used to show that this command is to all of those present, even though they are addressed individually. Everything Peter said in this verse was said to “them” [autous], a third person plural pronoun. The antecedent of the first humon is singular, but it is understood as plural because it refers to all present.

To summarize: If the second humon in Acts 2:38 is not original, Beisner’s argument ceases to exist. If it is original, there is no grammatical requirement that connects the remission of sins only to repentance. If the first humon is connected with baptism, and it is, there is no reason the second humon could not also be connected with baptism. In general, it seems best to understand everything Peter said to be addressed to the entire group present on the Day of Pentecost. All of them were to repent; each [another way of saying “all” with the emphasis on individual responsibility] was to be baptized, with both the repentance and baptism connected with the purpose of the remission of sins.

This is a partial quote so please read it all in context

Re: New Doctrine Emerges: NOT Forgiven at Repentan
 

I didn't call you a heretic, I called your doctrine heresy. Big difference...lol We are saved by grace through faith...not because of what we do, but because of what Jesus did.

Re: New Doctrine Emerges: NOT Forgiven at Repentan
 

Out of 35 respondents .... so far only three believe we are fully forgiven after water baptism ...

In my opinion, intuitively we know God forgives us at repentance ....

He cannot reject/despise a humble and contrite heart.

Re: New Doctrine Emerges: NOT Forgiven at Repentan
 

What makes one a heretic? Believing heresy, perhaps? Baptism is something Jesus does, not us. According to your logic, wouldn't repentance be an act of man? Truth is Repentance and Baptism and Holy Ghost infilling is all one big act of God called Salvation.

Re: New Doctrine Emerges: NOT Forgiven at Repentan
 

Broad is the way to destruction and narrow is the way to life. Few find the latter and many the former. 32 to 3, maybe?