Doctrinal Question - Someone Please Take a Shot at This.

[Encryptus]

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

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]

Originally Posted by Encryptus

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

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]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

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]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

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]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

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?