You see scripture must harmonize, David ... its basic hermeneutics.
Notice Bernard tried to link his interpretation of
Acts 2:38 to the other instances ... yet any fair examination points to the blood of Jesus and/or turning to God in repentance as resulting in forgiveness/remission.
This myopic faulty interpretation of
Acts 2:38 has no historical or biblical witness.
Again ... adding to the Word has serious consequences.
------------------------------------------
Did John the Baptist think his baptism was for "sin washing"?
-----------------------------------------------------------
16 of the 17 verses Bernard sought to cite connect aphesis/forgiveness/remission of sin with repentence, turning to Christ/God ....
NOT A PROPERLY ADMINISTERED BAPTISM IN WHICH SALVATION and WASHING OF SINS HANGS ON THE WORDS OF THE BAPTIZER for the blood of Christ to be applied - or even for a dirty soul to be thoroughly cleaned.
Again what is at stake in this discussion is whether it is sound hermeneutics for those who claim that sins are forgiven at repentance while sins are remitted/blotted/washed/wiped away at baptism when the Apostles and Christ DID NOT MAKE THIS DISTINCTION when speaking of forgiveness of sins in their usage of the word APHESIS.
I think we'd all agree that John, son of the priest, Zacarias, made him a Levite with strong doctrine in regards to this practice. It would also be safe to say that his Jewish disciples and John saw these baptisms as part of the Jewish mikveh tradition in which it was used as a witness to a vow made or to show allegiance to a rabbi.
Threaded Mode
