New Doctrine Emerges: NOT Forgiven at Repentance

[Tim Rutledge]

Originally Posted by Jeremy

Wow. Is that true? I would say my core beliefs are what some of you call "three steppers". My understanding has been that repentance is telling God you are sorry for your sinful ways, which is a sort of death, but that remission comes when you are buried with him in baptism (this is when, by my understanding, the blood is applied to your life.) and that the Holy Ghost represents the final resurrection, to "rise and walk in newness of life" with God's spirit dwelling inside of you, directing you, and helping you overcome the world.

I have always thought that remission was a major part of this whole thing. Remission is strictly a new testament word and (as I understood it) concept. The Bible says without blood, there can be no remission. Is this the same word (aphesis) as forgiveness here too? is there ever any distinction between the two? If not there is a major reason for a lot of confusion.

Side note: Dan (to a lessor extent) and Baron (to an almost unreadable extent), I know I am new here, and it seems this is a common contention here, but I would really like to say your arrogance and grand standing makes it seem like you are more interested in conflict than discussion. *Lets dance* *Sharpens iron* and phrases like that indicate to me that you are being cocky rather than sincerely trying to edify.

I hope that is not the case, as I think you guys are offering enlightening points of view and giving people some good points of reference to study. Why undo your work with needless and counterproductive hostility? Why ask pointed questions and try and trap people? It is an effective way to win an argument in in your own mind, (just look at the political analysts who use the same cheap, meaningless tactics.) and to people who agree with you, but will never accomplish anything real in changing opinions. Would it be so hard instead of saying "When are you forgiven? Huh, answer me, answer me, ANSWER ME! WHEN ARE YOU FORGIVEN? ANSWER THAT!!! to simply say "I believe based on _____ _:__ and _____ _:__ that forgiveness happens at repentance, and that the purpose of baptism and the infilling of the Holy Ghost is _______.?

I have been reading for two pages, and I know what you don't believe based on the general context of what you have said and not said, but have no clue what you DO believe./end rant



I thought this too, which is why I want to know more about what Dan said about the two words being the same.



Could you expound on the difference between the English words is they are both from the same Greek word? I am not sure how this can be.



See Dan? There is no need for needless posts like this one. This person ignores your content because he sees you as being an attention whore due to your sarcasm. Be nice about things! lol.



If I am understanding all of this, and I doubt I am, I think the bolded part of your story is where the problem is. Will she, or won't she be punished due to her forgiveness or lack thereof.

Find a different forum man.
Your clueless.

Is he? He seems pretty educated to me.



I looked it up on a cool web site I found while going through this thread and they are in fact different Greek words. Thanks for pointing this out. The definitions still seem rather ambiguous though as far as discerning one from the other as being significantly different.

Check it out. http://scripturetext.com/luke/24-47.htm

I am at the top of page 7, and I simply can not go any more. Sometimes, I literally get angry that all of this is so complicated.

It usually provokes utter apathy for the entire thing. I honestly wonder if anyone has the right answers and then I wonder how much longer I can continue to care. the more I try to learn, the more I realize that certain knowledge when it comes to this Bible thing is fairly nonexistent.

*Sigh* I think I am going to go shoot some Aliens in Halo 3 where the good guys and bad guys are more easily defined.

Jeremy.. put Dan A on ignore.. he's a contentious baptist.

[SDG]

When did Peter get converted? Acts 2.

Now AFTER Peter got converted, he could preach the following...

Act 3:19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;

Peter said repent AND be converted - what he was saying was what Jesus told him to preach in Luke 24:47 and Acts 2:38 - repent and be born again - born of the water and Spirit - be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ and be baptized in the Holy Ghost - be converted.

Repenting and being converted INCLUDES having your sins being blotted out or washed away.

Let's look at that word CONVERTED...

Conversion - Act 15:3 And being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren.

Where did the conversion of the Gentiles take place? What did it include? The conversion of the Gentiles took place in Acts 10 onward. What did the conversion of the Gentiles in Acts 10 include? Baptism in the Holy Ghost and baptism in water in the name of the Lord.

Act 5:31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Savior, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.
Act 5:32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.

In the context of salvation to Israel, God has given them repentance and remission of sins - compare with Luke 24:47, which was fulfilled in Acts 2:38. And those who have obeyed God in Him giving repentance and remission of sins, God has given the Holy Ghost. Those who will obey Acts 2:38 to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, God will cause them to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Compare that to Acts 2:38.

Heb 10:15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,
Heb 10:16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
Heb 10:17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
Heb 10:18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

The promise of the New Covenant includes having his laws written in our hearts and minds - what does that? - the Holy Ghost - what else is included in the new covenant? - the remission of sins and iniquities - and we know by other scriptures that remission of sins comes from repentance and being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ and we get his laws written in our hearts and minds by the Holy Ghost

I sometimes wonder if some bring up these threads just so those who don't believe can see the teaching from the word by responses to these threads; or if "Apostolics" are really questioning the salvation plan? Or if some are just wasting time on questions wherein their really is no profit because the answer is already given in black and white in the scriptures or are "unlearned questions"?

Most apostolics who have grown to a certain level of maturity through desiring the sincere milk of the word, already have been taught knowledge and have been caused to understand doctrine. Since they have knowledge and can understand doctrine, they are able to teach others.

Those "apostolics" who are otherwise or contrary, I wonder about?

Has somethings stunted their growth? Are they getting good healthy food? Is something wrong with the environment where they have been planted? Is the husbandman who is supposed to be looking after the trees and keeping them healthy and making sure they grow not fulfilling his responsibilities? Does he care or is he just a hireling out to get his hire?

Sometimes I wonder. Does anyone else wonder, or is it just me?

....

Questioning basic foundational principles of the doctrine of Christ? I notice in the above that repentance from dead works is a separate doctrine from baptisms - plural. Turning away from dead works and baptisms - plural - one of which is for the remission of sins. Perhaps we see 2 purposes here - repentance is for the turning away or a change in direction from or a 180 degree turn away from dead works or sin and water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ is for the remission or washing away of one's past sins.

Once again we find another myth being perpetuated by the 3 step Water and Spirit crowd playing with KJV words that don't mean what they want them to mean .... this time the word is "converted"

Faulty assumptions do not sound doctrine make:

1. We must accept converted in it's present English "church" meaning to mean and look like the writer believes salvation to be .... in this case adding baptism to the New Birth.

2. Acts 3:19 presents a HUGE DILEMMA when it's properly placed in the context of an Apostle who clearly states that our sins are blotted out when we repent and turn to God ...

Which brings the most important reason why your discussion on conversion is blatantly and patently FALSE in light of the Word ....

Paul never said "converted" as you dictate it to mean ...

Since you suggested we look at it ... Let's look at it in the original Greek:

Epistrepho

2. transitively
   1. to turn to
      1. to the worship of the true God
   2. to cause to return, to bring back
      1. to the love and obedience of God
      2. to the love for the children
      3. to love wisdom and righteousness
3. intransitively
   1. to turn to one's self
   2. to turn one's self about, turn back
   3. to return, turn back, come back

Other reliable translations of this verse put this word into action as follows:

International Standard Version (©2008)
Therefore, repent and turn to him to have your sins blotted out,

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord;

American Standard Version
Repent ye therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, that so there may come seasons of refreshing from the presence of the Lord;

New International Version
19Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord,

You see here have the preacher in Acts 2:38 preaching that repentance is for forgiveness/remission of sins ... our sins forgiven, pardoned and wiped out sans the other requirements you "forced" in his words.

Now if you believe that repentance is a turning away ...

repentance is for the turning away or a change in direction from or a 180 degree turn away from dead works

and Peter says that this results in the wiping away of sin .... in Acts 3:19 ... which in turn would add context to Acts 2:38 ...

and yet you believe this does not happen until a properly administered baptism is performed and glossolalia is evident for "conversion" or turning

then the question must be asked:

How on earth do you add to the Word of God and the teaching of an Apostle when there are clear repercussions in His Word for doing so?

I wonder myself about "apostolics", especially ministers, who throw around God's Word so flippantly. Are they stunted? Are they stuck in false doctrine? Why do you confuse the fruit with the root?

Lastly you make Jesus a liar if you say Peter was not fully saved ... "converted" as you deem it ... if he told his disciples their names were written the Book of Life, pre-Pentecost (Luke 10:20)

[Ev. Duane Williams]

Wow. Why did the KJV translators even attempt it? Didn't they know their Greek was inferior to DA's? They should have waited until the 21st century for Dan to translate an English Bible for us. Now that we have Dan, I guess we all can toss our KJVs and go with the DAGGGV, The Dan Alicea Greek Greasy Grace Version. Man, I feel so dumb for having trusted the KJV for all those years, not to mention our unlearned Pastors who have led thousands of people to Christ with such an inferior Bible. In fact, it would have really been great if Dan could have tutored Paul, Peter, and all the Apostles in what their Greek words really meant.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Ev. Duane Williams

Wow. Why did the KJV translators even attempt it? Didn't they know their Greek was inferior to DA's? They should have waited until the 21st century for Dan to translate an English Bible for us. Now that we have Dan, I guess we all can toss our KJVs and go with the DAGGGV, The Dan Alicea Greek Greasy Grace Version. Man, I feel so dumb for having trusted the KJV for all those years, not to mention our unlearned Pastors who have led thousands of people to Christ with such an inferior Bible. In fact, it would have really been great if Dan could have tutored Paul, Peter, and all the Apostles in what their Greek words really meant.

Amazingly how most of the Protestant world still was able to properly take those KJV words and still come to grips with the Gospel of Jesus Christ and salvation by grace thru faith ... not adding to the Word ...

... and not to a salvational paradigm that has only existed in the last 100 years by a few who have become more exclusivistic and polarized.

How were the KJV translators to know men like you would play with their word choices?

Apparently, you are not the Berean you sell yourself to be ... but rather buckle when faced with hard facts that challenge your box.

Do you have something to contribute E.D. other than snide remarks sans exegesis or sound refutation?

You and yours have taken words in the KJV that were not intended ... nor written for the significance you give them ... and have the gall to toss out what other reliable translations say and what the original text states ...

Oneness theologians like Segraves and Bernard who hold your view even agree with these translations ... of aphesis ... and still use the KJV.

You sir have been sold a bag of goods and have displaced your frustrations in trusting not in the KJV but in the doctrines of men....

If this is how you study in Berean mode ... you need to re-examine your "rock".

Adding to God's Word has consequence, even for an evangelist.

Nothing less than agreeing with your false meanings would mean compromise ... and Truth matters too much to some of us.

We can lead to Christ without being irresponsible with His Word.

[HappyTown]

History!

The world's oldest known copy of the complete bible (in bound book form), dating from 300-350 AD, is the Codex Sinaiticus. It is a translation from Hebrew and Greek manuscripts into an all Greek bible. It is believed that it may be one of 50 original bibles that the Emperor Constantine commissioned after converting the Eastern Roman Empire to Christianity. It was discovered at the Monastery of St. Catherine in Sinai, Egypt, which was built on what is traditionally believed to be the site of Moses' burning bush.
Although most of the Old Testament text has been destroyed, the New Testament text has survived and is in general agreement with the text used to establish the KJV of the bible.


Oldest Bible!

I think the oldest existing Bible of any sort is called the Codex Sinaiticus. It may be one of the original fifty(?) copies commissioned by Constantine after his conversion from which all modern Christian Bibles descend.

http://www.septuagint.net/

This was the very first time all, and only, the books we know as the books of the Bible were assembled into one larger document, both Old and New Testaments together. The "publishers/redactors" decided what documents were important enough to include in this single work.

However, the Old Testament in the Codex is almost certainly not the Hebrew Bible of the same era. Instead, it is almost certainly derived from the Septuagint. The Septuagint was a collection of separate Jewish texts available in the second(?) century BCE, translated into Greek, and accumulated into a single document. The Greek speaking Jews of Alexandria commissioned the work for their own use, and it is from the Greek term for this work that we get the word Bible.

http://www.septuagint.net/

The Hebrew Bible known today was assembled in the first century CE. This was likely an effort to salvage, organize, and propagate important texts that survived the destruction inflicted on the temple and nation during that era. I believe all the books included also appear in the Septuagint, but not all of the books in the Septuagint appear in the Hebrew Bible.

Reasons for the difference might be explained by simple deliberate exclusion because the books were not important enough. In addition, perhaps they were not available in the original Hebrew. Original Hebrew being required for a number of reasons.

Apparently, no copy of the Septuagint is available that is older then the Constantine Bible. In addition, I do not believe a Hebrew Bible older then about 1,000 years has ever been found, although various forms of most books were included in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The Old Testaments in both Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches derive from the Septuagent and include books not in the modern Hebrew Bible. Protestant Bibles use the modern Hebrew Bible as the basis for the Old Testament.

[Ev. Duane Williams]

Dan,

The "last 100 years" line doesn't hold water. Were there none who believed in Baptism for remission of sins earlier than this? Yes, there were, and you know it. I am not a protestant. I am not a catholic. The RCC is a great whore and her protestant daughters are apples fallen not far from their tree. There has always been a Church who believed in One God, who Baptised in Jesus' Name for Remission of sins, who received the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in other tongues. Marvin Arnold and William Chalfant have done significant research in this area, which is quite a task considering the History of this Church was burned and retold by their Roman catholic enemies who burned their bodies alongside their works. My Pastor, Dr. Curtis Ward, is currently writing a definitive work on the History of God's only True Church, which is tentatively titled "Bloodstains in the Wilderness". He has done more research in this area than any before him as far as I know. His research has taken him throughout Europe and the Middle East, where he's spoken to catholic, orthodox, and protestant church historians, as well as Jewish authorities on Jewish/Christian history. Some of his time in the Middle East this time will be devoted to research as well as his upcoming trip to Wales. His book will chart an unbroken Church of Oneness Pentecostal Believers(three steppers) from the Day of Pentecost to the present.

Your pretentiousness with the Greek stuff is over the top, and doesn't add anything but semantics to the discussion. Greek study is of great importance to any good Bible student, but whenever you have to break every word down into the Greek to make your point, you've shown you've already lost the debate.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Ev. Duane Williams

My Pastor, Dr. Curtis Ward, is currently writing a definitive work on the History of God's only True Church, which is tentatively titled "Bloodstains in the Wilderness". He has done more research in this area than any before him as far as I know. His research has taken him throughout Europe and the Middle East, where he's spoken to catholic, orthodox, and protestant church historians, as well as Jewish authorities on Jewish/Christian history. Some of his time in the Middle East this time will be devoted to research as well as his upcoming trip to Wales. His book will chart an unbroken Church of Oneness Pentecostal Believers(three steppers) from the Day of Pentecost to the present..

I'd be very interested in reading your pastor's book. How far along is he?

[theoldpaths]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Once again we find another myth being perpetuated by the 3 step Water and Spirit crowd playing with KJV words that don't mean what they want them to mean .... this time the word is "converted"

Faulty assumptions do not sound doctrine make:

1. We must accept converted in it's present English "church" meaning to mean and look like the writer believes salvation to be .... in this case adding baptism to the New Birth.

2. Acts 3:19 presents a HUGE DILEMMA when it's properly placed in the context of an Apostle who clearly states that our sins are blotted out when we repent and turn to God ...

Which brings the most important reason why your discussion on conversion is blatantly and patently FALSE in light of the Word ....

Paul never said "converted" as you dictate it to mean ...

Since you suggested we look at it ... Let's look at it in the original Greek:

Epistrepho

2. transitively
   1. to turn to
      1. to the worship of the true God
   2. to cause to return, to bring back
      1. to the love and obedience of God
      2. to the love for the children
      3. to love wisdom and righteousness
3. intransitively
   1. to turn to one's self
   2. to turn one's self about, turn back
   3. to return, turn back, come back

Other reliable translations of this verse put this word into action as follows:

International Standard Version (©2008)
Therefore, repent and turn to him to have your sins blotted out,

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord;

American Standard Version
Repent ye therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, that so there may come seasons of refreshing from the presence of the Lord;

New International Version
19Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord,

You see here have the preacher in Acts 2:38 preaching that repentance is for forgiveness/remission of sins ... our sins forgiven, pardoned and wiped out sans the other requirements you "forced" in his words.

Now if you believe that repentance is a turning away ...and Peter says that this results in the wiping away of sin .... in Acts 3:19 ... which in turn would add context to Acts 2:38 ...

and yet you believe this does not happen until a properly administered baptism is performed and glossolalia is evident for "conversion" or turning

then the question must be asked:

How on earth do you add to the Word of God and the teaching of an Apostle when there are clear repercussions in His Word for doing so?

I wonder myself about "apostolics", especially ministers, who throw around God's Word so flippantly. Are they stunted? Are they stuck in false doctrine? Why do you confuse the fruit with the root?

Lastly you make Jesus a liar if you say Peter was not fully saved ... "converted" as you deem it ... if he told his disciples their names were written the Book of Life, pre-Pentecost (Luke 10:20)

And how did they know that the Gentiles had converted? Because they had rec'd the HOly Ghost and were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. It's so simple.

But let's take a closer look at Acts 10 & a little of Acts 11 - you know - where the Gentiles were converted...

Acts 10:1 There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band, 2 A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway.

Angel to Cornelius - Acts 10:5 And now send men to Joppa, and call for one Simon, whose surname is Peter: 6 He lodgeth with one Simon a tanner, whose house is by the sea side: he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do.

TO DO for what?

Peter explaining after-the-fact - Acts 11:13 And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter; 14 Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.

To be saved

Peter was to be fetched to tell Cornelius what CORNELIUS HAD TO DO TO BE SAVED. Heavy emphasis on Cornelius having to DO SOMETHING.

Cornelius speaking to Peter - Acts 10:33 Immediately therefore I sent to thee; and thou hast well done that thou art come. Now therefore are we all here present before God, to hear all things that are commanded thee of God.
Cornelius was ready to hear all things COMMANDED Peter of God

Cornelius was ready to hear all things COMMANDED of God. Commanded for what? To be obeyed. Let's see if Peter commands Cornelius to do something. Remember that Cornelius was to fetch Peter who would tell him what he ought to DO TO BE SAVED.

Peter speaking to Cornelius - Acts 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: 35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

Acts 10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
Acts 10:45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Notice "the" gift of the Holy Ghost, not "a" gift of the Holy Ghost - the promise of the Father (Joel 2)

How did the jews know that on the gentiles was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost?

Acts 10:45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Acts 10:46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,

The reason why the Jews knew that the Gentiles had rec'd the Holy Ghost was because they heard them speak with tongues. John 3:8 - a sound will accompany EVERYONE - no exceptions - that is born of the Spirit.

Water - Baptism - COMMANDED - Acts 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

In Acts 10:48, Peter COMMANDED Cornelius to DO something - to be baptized. Remember that Cornelius was to fetch Peter who would tell him what he ought to DO TO BE SAVED.

Peter explaining after-the-fact - Acts 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. They rec'd the HOly Ghost just like the Jews in Acts 2 and the Samaritans in Acts 8. Incidentally it was as Peter BEGAN to speak. He didn't even have a chance to tell them what they needed to DO to be saved - what was COMMANDED of God to be done to be saved before they rec'd the Holy Ghost. But after Peter and the Jews saw that they were born of the Spirit, he COMMANDED them to be born of the water - to be baptized in the name Jesus.

Reminds me of when Paul in the gentile land of Ephesus came across the disciples of John. As soon as Paul found out that they were NOT born of the Spirit, he immediately asks them of the other NT new birth requirement of how they were baptized to see if they had been born of the water yet.

More to come, message too long...

[theoldpaths]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Once again we find another myth being perpetuated by the 3 step Water and Spirit crowd playing with KJV words that don't mean what they want them to mean .... this time the word is "converted"

Faulty assumptions do not sound doctrine make:

1. We must accept converted in it's present English "church" meaning to mean and look like the writer believes salvation to be .... in this case adding baptism to the New Birth.

2. Acts 3:19 presents a HUGE DILEMMA when it's properly placed in the context of an Apostle who clearly states that our sins are blotted out when we repent and turn to God ...

You see here have the preacher in Acts 2:38 preaching that repentance is for forgiveness/remission of sins ... our sins forgiven, pardoned and wiped out sans the other requirements you "forced" in his words.

Now if you believe that repentance is a turning away ...and Peter says that this results in the wiping away of sin .... in Acts 3:19 ... which in turn would add context to Acts 2:38 ...

and yet you believe this does not happen until a properly administered baptism is performed and glossolalia is evident for "conversion" or turning

then the question must be asked:

How on earth do you add to the Word of God and the teaching of an Apostle when there are clear repercussions in His Word for doing so?

I wonder myself about "apostolics", especially ministers, who throw around God's Word so flippantly. Are they stunted? Are they stuck in false doctrine? Why do you confuse the fruit with the root?

Lastly you make Jesus a liar if you say Peter was not fully saved ... "converted" as you deem it ... if he told his disciples their names were written the Book of Life, pre-Pentecost (Luke 10:20)

Concerning Acts 3:19...

Act 3:19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;

He didn't say repent that your sins may be blotted out. He said repent AND be converted.

Repent and be converted or born again of the water and Spirit - baptized in the name of Jesus and receiving the gift of the HOly Ghost - fulfills the principle of CONSISTENCY.

It is consistent with John 3
It is consistent with Luke 24:47-49
It is consistent with Peter using the keys - PLURAL not key SINGULAR- to unlock the door of HOW to be born again of the water and the Spirit in Acts 2:38
It is consistent with the conversion of the Samaritans in Acts 8
It is consistent with the conversion of the Gentiles in Acts 10
It is consistent with the conversion of JOhn's disciples in Acts 19
It is consistent with the OT type and shadow show to the NT Corinthian church in 1 Cor 10:1-2

On and on it goes.

As for when our sins are washed away, we have Acts 22:16...

Act 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Acts 22:16 is CONSISTENT with a whole wack of other scriptures showing that NT water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ is for the remission of sins.

Do you think that such a religious person as Paul after what happened to him on the road to Damascus, finding out that his "Lord" was really Jesus and that his persecuting the Christians was really him kicking against the pricks and after being blind for so many days wouldn't have spent time in repentance? In fact the scripture says that he ate and drank nothing for 3 days and the scripture says he prayed. If it was me, I know that part of my praying and fasting for 3 days would be repentance. And yet, his sins were still not washed away yet. What did Paul have to DO to have his sins washed away? He had to be baptized.

Peter was the one who preached Acts 2:38 in obedience to Luke 24:47. If repentance was enough and was the action that caused sins to be washed or remitted away, then Jesus in Luke 24:47 would only have to say....

that repentance should be preached in his name among all nations.

But that is NOT what Jesus said. What he did say was...

Luk 24:47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Repentance AND remission of sins. And what did Peter preach in Acts 2:38? Repent AND be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Peter did NOT say - Repent for the remission of sins and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

The word is written the way it was meant to be written. God cares about the jots and the tittles.

And Peter, the one who obeyed Luke 24:47 by preaching Acts 2:38, even had to say this about water baptism in his epistle...

1Pe 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
1Pe 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

Good conscience here shows that NT water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ is for the remission or washing away of all of one's past sins. If one had all of his past sins washed away or remitted do you think it would give him a good conscience towards God? Peter knew so. Incidentally, the above also shows that NT water baptism is PART OF salvation.

Conscience and blood...

Heb 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

Heb 10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
Heb 10:2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.

Conscience and water...

Heb 10:22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.

salvation, water, baptism, conscience - 1 Peter 3:21-22

The Spirit, blood, and water all agree in one. When one is born of the water and Spirit, they become a living witness in earth of the Spirit, blood, and water all agreeing in one NT salvation.

1Jn 5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

The water and the blood agree in one.

Even John as an OT type, preached the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins...

Mar 1:4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

The pharisees rejected the baptism of God - which was the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins - and they went about setting up their own righteousness.

The Catholics have admitted in writing to changing NT water baptism from the name to the titles and the Catholics have gone about setting up their own righteousness and becoming the same TYPE of people as the Pharisees...

"The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Ghost by the Catholic Church in the second century." - Britanica Encyclopedia. 11th Ed., Vol.3, pp.365, 366; Also The change, The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol.2, pp.263

Romans 1:25 - Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Notice that those who changed the truth of God into a lie, worship and serve the creature more than the creator - but notice they still worship and serve the creator

Matthew 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Matthew 15:6 Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
Mark 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Concerning bible translations, why would you go to bibles that are based upon the corrupt Minority Text as opposed to the Majority Text, if not to only find support for what you believe?

What verses does the NIV omit and most new versions - Mat 17:21; 18:11; 23:14; Mark 7:16; 9:44, 46; 11:26; 15:28; Luke 17:36; 23:17; John 5:4; Acts 8:37; 24:7; 28:29; and Romans 16:24 - just like the JW's NWT

Concerning Peter, at that present time he was fulfilling the will of God - to obey and follow Jesus. But he was NOT yet NT born again or converted, because...

Heb 9:16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
Heb 9:17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

God bless.

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Dan,

I worked a 12 hour shift and have lost the energy to sharpen swords with you tonight.

So just to get started here are my premises in the form of a syllogism:

First a presupposition: Remission and Forgiveness is the same thing, they come from the same Greek word. This is not to say a Greek word cannot have a variety of meanings, but the meanings of "aphesis" are all very similar: release, pardon, cancellation, forgiveness, remission and the majority of the time are linked with sin. (I would like to see someone present a contrary opinion with scriptural proof.)

1) Sins are remitted by the applied blood of Jesus Christ.

2) Remission of sins takes place at water baptism in Jesus name.

3) Therefore, the blood of Christ is applied at water baptism.


I'll give scriptural proof for these premises tomorrow.

mizpeh and imagine that Romans 6 clearly shows when the blood is applied "BAPTISM." Wow baptism saves how genuine! 1 Peter 3:21