Where are all the Acts 2:38 folks (3-steppers)??

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by Ferd

St. Matthew, your tHread has turned into one of the best on the forum.

there is a whole bunch of meat here for any willing to slog thru nearly 700 pages. Lots of very thoughtful stuff!

And haven't we pretty well determined that we're all Acts 2:38 believers?

[BoredOutOfMyMind]

Originally Posted by pelathais

I appreciate your concerns Scotty, but I'm still looking for answers.

I'm afraid I haven't had an opportunity to get to know you, but I would like to point out a problem I have with the underlined statement above (underlined by me for emphasis). While I share your democratic sentiments about life on the board, for all practical purposes the AFF board does belong to a group of people and the Admin team is delegated to at least try and keep the whole project on course. To be successful they obviously have to allow a certain spontaneity and chaos to reign, but that's part of the fun too.

However, it really is their board. If BOOMM were to insert a script limiting access to only Ubuntu users, then that's just the way it goes. Either ditch Windows or move on to about.com. It's their board. (I've broken up this response into two parts... and that was a rather rude ending, so please continue reading).

This WILL NOT happen.

We are even easy on those Mac users.

[Esther]

Originally Posted by Ferd

St. Matthew, your tHread has turned into one of the best on the forum.

there is a whole bunch of meat here for any willing to slog thru nearly 700 pages. Lots of very thoughtful stuff!

I'm hoping next week to have time to read the whole thread.

I have enjoyed the bits and pieces I have been able to read.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by pelathais

I've often been met with this response so I would welcome any opportunity to improve my articulation.

One of the key points of disagreement about baptism is often summed up in the debate about how "eis" (translated as "for" in KJV) is to be understood in Acts 2:38. Do we "obey the command" to be baptized in order that our sins may be remitted, or do we "follow the instructions because our sins have already been remitted" and thus we are baptized (in a manner of speaking) as Jesus was: "to fulfill all righteousness?"

My working hypothesis is "yes" to both. And I'm not just trying to get two sides to agree either. But underlying this debate is a fundamental paradox that our human abilities will always struggle to grasp. I feel that both sides are correct. but also that both sides are wrong when they leave out "the other side of the coin."

This question avoids the point. Jesus taught that his baptism was to fulfill all righteousness, indicating that baptism was a command. Jesus also commanded that the church baptize converts in the Great Commission. We see Peter preaching to those in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost and in his sermon he admonished them to obey and be baptized after repentance. Peter also commanded that the gentiles be water baptized in the name of the Lord in Acts 10.

You're wanting to dance with Acts 2:38 while ignoring the whole of Scripture in regards to water baptism.

Again I ask; is water baptism a command of Scripture? Yes or no?

This is an important question because if we can conclude that it is a command, failure to baptize or be baptized is rebellion against the Scriptures.

[Brother Price]

Originally Posted by Aquila

This question avoids the point. Jesus taught that his baptism was to fulfill all righteousness, indicating that baptism was a command. Jesus also commanded that the church baptize converts in the Great Commission. We see Peter preaching to those in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost and in his sermon he admonished them to obey and be baptized after repentance. Peter also commanded that the gentiles be water baptized in the name of the Lord in Acts 10.

You're wanting to dance with Acts 2:38 while ignoring the whole of Scripture in regards to water baptism.

Again I ask; is water baptism a command of Scripture? Yes or no?

This is an important question because if we can conclude that it is a command, failure to baptize or be baptized is rebellion against the Scriptures.

And, here is a counter question? If a soul is physically unable to be baptized, if God's grace annulled because they cannot physically be baptized? I thought salvation was by grace through faith and NOT of works? Is God's grace limited when man cannot fulfill a works requirement for salvation?

So, is God unrighteous?

[Rhoni]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

And haven't we pretty well determined that we're all Acts 2:38 believers?

Renda,

You are correct in this assumption but people love to stir up trouble for those who do not teach it exactly as they believe it should be taught and therefore make another case against the Charismatic type folks among us.

Blessings, Rhoni

[scotty]

Originally Posted by Brother Price

And, here is a counter question? If a soul is physically unable to be baptized, if God's grace annulled because they cannot physically be baptized? I thought salvation was by grace through faith and NOT of works? Is God's grace limited when man cannot fulfill a works requirement for salvation?

So, is God unrighteous?

To me this gets into how one believes baptism can be performed, you know the old "it has to be running water, not in a tub"

I believe it is that very Grace and Faith that saves, as far as I'm concerned if you can not physically be baptized by immersion then yes a shower will do....lol....If you have the faith that the baptisim is for the remission of sins through the cross.

As for the next question coming, NO, I don't think that means that everyone can be baptized how ever they want to through faith,,,,Why??? Because I don't think God is sitting up there nit picking through mans imature thoughts of " well he did it why can't I"


( hey Bro. , are you kinfolk with any Prices out of Indiana or Arkansas?)

[Brother Price]

Mornin Scotty,

Nah. My Price's are out of Tennessee, Nashville and Knoxville areas.

As for your post, here are my thoughts on the issue of baptism.

We are saved by grace through faith. This is shown in the various coversions in which the Holy Ghost falls on an individual prior to them being baptized. However, as a believer, we are commanded to be baptized. Yet, as was the case in many times under the Law, when one was unable to fulfill such a requirement after salvation, God's grace stepped in.

If one is able to be baptized, one should. Yes, this is a commandment. However, when one is unable to be baptized, where does this leave us?

[scotty]

Originally Posted by Brother Price

Mornin Scotty,

Nah. My Price's are out of Tennessee, Nashville and Knoxville areas.

As for your post, here are my thoughts on the issue of baptism.

We are saved by grace through faith. This is shown in the various coversions in which the Holy Ghost falls on an individual prior to them being baptized. However, as a believer, we are commanded to be baptized. Yet, as was the case in many times under the Law, when one was unable to fulfill such a requirement after salvation, God's grace stepped in.

If one is able to be baptized, one should. Yes, this is a commandment. However, when one is unable to be baptized, where does this leave us?

I don't guess I understand "unable". If one can not be submerged, he can be showered or sprinkled or something. How is one "unable"?

[Brother Price]

Unable means not able to be moved or touched. This was his condition when he was near death, after it was so clear that he had repented.