THIS is True Love!!!

[Sherri]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

As someone who was Born Again in part due to listing to Because of the Times tapes, then several months later was baptized in Jesus Name at a local UPC, I can only attest to how it happened for me.

As Pel said the phrase "for the remission of sins" can be pointing to "repentance" (assuming of course those being baptized repented first).

Also, "for" can mean "because of" and not just "in order to obtain". I am satisfied in knowing that we all fall short of perfect theology.

I am sure my own understanding and my interpretation of scripture is something less than perfect. God knows, and He alone will judge. I actually find that comforting. I rest in Jesus.

Good post!

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

As someone who was Born Again in part due to listing to Because of the Times tapes, then several months later was baptized in Jesus Name at a local UPC, I can only attest to how it happened for me.

As Pel said the phrase "for the remission of sins" can be pointing to "repentance" (assuming of course those being baptized repented first).

Also, "for" can mean "because of" and not just "in order to obtain". I am satisfied in knowing that we all fall short of perfect theology.

I am sure my own understanding and my interpretation of scripture is something less than perfect. God knows, and He alone will judge. I actually find that comforting. I rest in Jesus.

As much as we have disagreed in sharing our perspectives, we are in 100% agreement here. I am wrong -- but how much am I wrong? It definitely keep me humble in that respect.

[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.

[Elizabeth]

Originally Posted by Margies3

Really? Cuz I was always taught that we repented, then were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS and then we received the gift of the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in other tongues. That's the way I understood it for all the years that I was in the UPC.

Originally Posted by The Mrs

This is how I was always taught as well.

Me too- Although I was baptized in a AA church.

[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......

[OneAccord]

The very first post on this thread is what I have a problem with. Salvation, it seems, is being presented as nothing more than a carrot being dangled in front of us to keep us plodding along... hoping that one day we might achieve. Its a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow we are seeking, yet, unable to really lay claim to.

"Repent!", the preacher exclaims. We do, but we aren't saved uintil we are baprtized.

We get baptized according to Acts 2:38. Still ain't there til we recieved the Holy Ghost and speak in tongues. Are we there yet? No, theres a little matter of believing in the Oneness of the Godhead. And holiness standards. And submission to pastoral authority. Or any other rule someone tacks on.

So, few if any ever really achieve salvation. Its out there for us, just hold on or let go- whatever we have to do to get it. The only problem is, its always out there.... just out of our reach.

I'm thankful for the day when I finaly learned that salvation isn't by anything I can do. But its by faith in what He has already done!

[Cindy]

Originally Posted by OneAccord

The very first post on this thread is what I have a problem with. Salvation, it seems, is being presented as nothing more than a carrot being dangled in front of us to keep us plodding along... hoping that one day we might achieve. Its a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow we are seeking, yet, unable to really lay claim to.

"Repent!", the preacher exclaims. We do, but we aren't saved uintil we are baprtized.

We get baptized according to Acts 2:38. Still ain't there til we recieved the Holy Ghost and speak in tongues. Are we there yet? No, theres a little matter of believing in the Oneness of the Godhead. And holiness standards. And submission to pastoral authority. Or any other rule someone tacks on.

So, few if any ever really achieve salvation. Its out there for us, just hold on or let go- whatever we have to do to get it. The only problem is, its always out there.... just out of our reach.

I'm thankful for the day when I finaly learned that salvation isn't by anything I can do. But its by faith in what He has already done!

There it is!

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Margies3

Really? Cuz I was always taught that we repented, then were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS and then we received the gift of the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in other tongues. That's the way I understood it for all the years that I was in the UPC.

Sorry for the lateness of my reply, Margie... but I think Hoovie and Renda summed it up nicely. There truely is a valid difference of opinion on this one. The "for" (Greek = "εἰς" or "eis") in Acts 2:38, can go either way. It really is silly for some to beat others over the head on this one.

I personally lean toward the "repentance" side of things because of the way "εἰς" is used in such passages as Mark 1:4. John's baptism was a baptism "for the remission of sins" - yet he did not baptize "in Jesus' name." Also, we read here that John's baptism was a "baptism of repentance." How was "the remission of sins" conferred upon those whom John had baptized?

It had to be the repentance coupled with a hopeful looking forward to of the One that John said would follow (Matthew 3:11-12 and Acts 19:4-5). I also see "the remission of sins" repeatedly attached to conversion, faith, and belief in Jesus Christ as discussed throughout this thread already.

Reading documents such as the PCI Manual, The Manual of the United Pentecostal Church and the UPC's Articles of Faith, we read repeatedly that "genuine repentance" wrought "the remission of sins." That was the historic teaching of the UPC.

In this context, OPII has complained that he cannot "recite the core beliefs of the UPC" on this forum. I have not seen any admins put up any "Stop Signs" even when he gave a rather lopsided "recitation" of those beliefs. He has, however, run into some flak here from other posters because apparently OPII was simply unaware of the historical teachings of the UPC.

[mizpeh]

You all can believe what you want but "eis" is not causal in Acts 2:38. An interesting article on the preposition "eis" in Acts 2:38:

Dallas Professor Rebuffs Common Quibble on “Eis”
By WAYNE JACKSON
September 3, 2001
Bookmark and Share

On the day of Pentecost, at the conclusion of his presentation, the apostle Peter issued the following command.

“Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto [‘for’ KJV] the remission of your sins . . .” (Acts 2:38 ASV).

The Greek preposition eis (for/unto) has long been a point of controversy between those who believe that baptism is essential to salvation, and those who repudiate that idea. It has been common over the years for scholars to allege that eis has a causal force, i.e., its meaning actually conveys this thought: “. . . be baptized because of the remission of your sins.” “Forgiveness,” it is claimed, is received at the point of faith — and that alone.
A.T. Robertson, the premier Baptist grammarian, argued this case in his famous work, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman, 1930, III, 35-36). In addition, J.R. Mantey contended for the “causal” sense of eis in Acts 2:38, though he classified that use of the preposition as a “remote meaning.” His discussion clearly indicated, however, that he yielded to that view because of his conviction that, if baptism was “for the purpose of the remission of sins,” then salvation would be of works, and not by faith (a false conclusion) (see: H.E. Dana & J.R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, New York: Macmillan, 1955, 103-04). Those of the Baptist persuasion constantly appeal to Robertson and Mantey as authorities on this matter.

It has been a matter of long-standing knowledge, however, that the standard Greek lexicons do not define eis as “because of” with reference to Acts 2:38. J.H. Thayer, for instance, translated the term as follows, citing Acts 2:38 — “eis aphesin hamartion, to obtain the forgiveness of sins” (Greek-English Lexicon, Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark, 1958, 94). Wm. Arndt and F.W. Gingrich, in a section where eis is defined as expressing “purpose,” with the sense of “in order to,” rendered the same phrase: “for forgiveness of sins, so that sins might be forgiven . . . Acts 2:38:” (Greek-English Lexicon, Chicago: University of Chicago, 1967, 228).

Elliger states that eis, in Acts 2:38, is designed “to indicate purpose” (Horst Balz & Gerhard Schneider, Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990, Vol. 1, 399). In his discussion of Acts 2:38, Ceslas Spicq noted: “Water baptism is a means of realizing this conversion, and its goal — something altogether new — is a washing, ‘the remission of sins’” (Theological Lexicon of the New Testament, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994, Vol. 1, 242). It is hardly necessary to pile up additional testimony.

That brings me to this point. In 1996, Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, an associate professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, published his new book, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan). It is a scholarly volume of more than 800 pages. In his discussion of eis, Wallace lists five uses of the preposition, and among them “causal” is conspicuously missing!

Prof. Wallace explains the absence. He says that an “interesting discussion over the force of eis took place several years ago, especially in relation to Acts 2:38.” He references the position of J.R. Mantey, that “eis could be used causally” in this passage. Wallace mentions that Mantey was taken to task by another scholar, Ralph Marcus (Marcus, Journal of Biblical Literature, 70 1952 129-30; 71 1953 44). These two men engaged in what Dr. Wallace called a “blow-by-blow” encounter. When the smoke had cleared, the Dallas professor concedes, “Marcus ably demonstrated that the linguistic evidence for a causal eis fell short of proof” (370).

It is not that Prof. Wallace has come to the conviction that baptism is essential for salvation. No, he resorts to other manipulations to resist that conclusion.
He has, however, rebuffed a long-defended argument that eis means “because of.” We are happy for that progress, and we, with genuine sincerity, pray that many of our Protestant, “faith-only” friends will make even further advancements toward the truth of the first-century gospel.

http://www.christiancourier.com/arti...quibble-on-eis

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by The Mrs

This is how I was always taught as well.

Same here, 100%.