THIS is True Love!!!

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by pelathais

I wasn't saying that either "baptism" nor "repentance" were ambiguous. What's "ambiguous" is the prepositional phrase, "for the remission of sins."

Does this prepositional phrase modify "baptism" or "repentance?" In the end, for the obedient and sincere believer it really is a moot point. We repent and we are baptized. Our sins are remitted.

However, the UPC's "official" documents have always said that "remission of sins" comes at "Repentance and Conversion" and not at baptism. "Water baptism for the remission of sins" at least appears to have been a minority view amongst the brethren early on.

As time went by, there has been an increasing move toward making the prepositional phrase modify "baptism." This is probably the majority opinion now and, I think, represents what you've heard preached. Historically, it does represent a change. So, before guys like OPII "send everyone else to hell" - it would be wise for them to stop and read the actual documents of the org he names.

Sorry for the delayed response. I'm having trouble with my Internet provider or my phone line. I'll have to call them again on Monday. Very aggravating.

I'll have to think about what you typed in bold. I have to listen to John preaching a "baptism of repentance" and think about that. They appear to be tied up together. I, obviously, don't know everything, but this seems important as there doesn't seem to be any disconnect with repentance and baptism for the remission of sins as preached in Acts.

My loyalties are only tied up with God and His Word. Been a lot of places, seen a lot of faces, you know how that plays out in the end.

[Michael Phelps]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Sorry for the delayed response. I'm having trouble with my Internet provider or my phone line. I'll have to call them again on Monday. Very aggravating.

I'll have to think about what you typed in bold. I have to listen to John preaching a "baptism of repentance" and think about that. They appear to be tied up together. I, obviously, don't know everything, but this seems important as there doesn't seem to be any disconnect with repentance and baptism for the remission of sins as preached in Acts.

My loyalties are only tied up with God and His Word. Been a lot of places, seen a lot of faces, you know how that plays out in the end.

My challenges to OPII were more about his attitude, and his mindless recitation of old time traditions and perpetuation of self-righteous demarcation - i.e. the TRUE apostolics vs. the fake ones, the true truth holders vs. the greasy gracers.

However, I do find it interesting that there are people who will completely ignore plain scripture in a rush to grab a few other scriptures to bolster up their case, and I wonder why we are so afraid of certain scriptures? Why do we have to qualify them by saying "Well, that's not really what it means, or that's not all there is to it".

And, PO, this is not intended to you, I just happened to grab your post to reply to since it's the last in the link......

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps

My challenges to OPII were more about his attitude, and his mindless recitation of old time traditions and perpetuation of self-righteous demarcation - i.e. the TRUE apostolics vs. the fake ones, the true truth holders vs. the greasy gracers.

However, I do find it interesting that there are people who will completely ignore plain scripture in a rush to grab a few other scriptures to bolster up their case, and I wonder why we are so afraid of certain scriptures? Why do we have to qualify them by saying "Well, that's not really what it means, or that's not all there is to it".

And, PO, this is not intended to you, I just happened to grab your post to reply to since it's the last in the link......

Thanks, Michael!

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Sorry for the delayed response. I'm having trouble with my Internet provider or my phone line. I'll have to call them again on Monday. Very aggravating.

I'll have to think about what you typed in bold. I have to listen to John preaching a "baptism of repentance" and think about that. They appear to be tied up together. I, obviously, don't know everything, but this seems important as there doesn't seem to be any disconnect with repentance and baptism for the remission of sins as preached in Acts.

My loyalties are only tied up with God and His Word. Been a lot of places, seen a lot of faces, you know how that plays out in the end.

It's an old debate and there are many viewpoints that have and will pop up. For me, why do the Articles of Faith clearly say "genuine repentance" is what is required to receive "pardon and forgiveness of sins" and then have the heading under "Water Baptism" be absolutely silent about any sort of reference to "the remission of sins?"

Until 1973, not even the Fundamental Doctrine had the phrase "for the remission of sins" in it. DKB has offered the opinion that this was an "unfortunate oversight" based upon a conversation he reported having with Stanley Chambers (or something Bro. Chambers had said publicly). However, adding the phrase to the Fundamental Doctrine à la Acts 2:38, merely perpetuates the original ambiguities.

There is a lot of pressure right now to overhaul the AoF and purge it of all references to "pardon and forgiveness of sins" being attached to "genuine repentance."

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by pelathais

It's an old debate and there are many viewpoints that have and will pop up. For me, why do the Articles of Faith clearly say "genuine repentance" is what is required to receive "pardon and forgiveness of sins" and then have the heading under "Water Baptism" be absolutely silent about any sort of reference to "the remission of sins?"

Until 1973, not even the Fundamental Doctrine had the phrase "for the remission of sins" in it. DKB has offered the opinion that this was an "unfortunate oversight" based upon a conversation he reported having with Stanley Chambers (or something Bro. Chambers had said publicly). However, adding the phrase to the Fundamental Doctrine à la Acts 2:38, merely perpetuates the original ambiguities.

There is a lot of pressure right now to overhaul the AoF and purge it of all references to "pardon and forgiveness of sins" being attached to "genuine repentance."

Pel,
I don't know. I never read any of these things when I got in church, however, I spent a lot of time reading my Bible. That's what I thought I was supposed to do. Frankly, I don't see how baptism was overlooked and remained silent on the issue. From what I have studied, coupled with what Mizpeh posted on "eis" not being being casual (I didn't have to study the Greek to come to that conclusion), I'd have to agree with DKB, it was an unfortunate oversight.