Doctrinal Question - Someone Please Take a Shot at This.

[Encryptus]

Originally Posted by Stephen Hoover

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]

Originally Posted by Encryptus

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]

Originally Posted by Stephen Hoover

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]

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.

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

[Aquila]

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Stephen Hoover

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]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

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]

Originally Posted by Aquila

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]

Originally Posted by Aquila

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]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

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...&postcount=515