The "Free License to Sin" nonsense.

[nrajeff]

If you can't pound the facts or the logic, pound the table, eh?

Or you can pound Jethro's total failure to actually adduce any evidence that my interpretation was incorrect. Well, YOU can't or won't do that, but I already did.

[Chrawnus]

It's almost as if you realize that the plain, obvious meaning of the verse IS the correct meaning, but you decided that I arrived at that correct meaning "illegitimately."

The actual "plain, obvious meaning" of a verse in a text from a 1st century Mediterranean culture is not always as plain and obvious to a person living in a 21st century Western culture as you would believe, even if aforementioned modern Westerner believes it is. It may in fact even be that this person thinks what he, due to his modernist lenses, perceives to be the "plain, obvious meaning" is actually the real "plain, obvious meaning", even when in reality, it isn't even close.

[Cow Poke]

Have YOU? You go on to lecture about what a person needs to do "in order to understand ANYTHING," etc.--yet YOU never ONCE showed how my interpretation of the verse in question was INCORRECT--let alone backed up your rival interpretation with evidence based on YOUR 'proper teaching' in hermeneutics and YOUR "proper research." I wonder why.

It's almost as if you realize that the plain, obvious meaning of the verse IS the correct meaning, but you decided that I arrived at that correct meaning "illegitimately."

You have already agreed that the Greek word "eis" could mean either "so that" or "because of", yes?

Another logical "check" would be to see how "Salvation" is taught in the rest of the New Testament. What other verses back up your assertion that Baptism is NECESSARY for Salvation, and what NT teachings don't mention baptism at all when dealing with "how to be saved".

[One Bad Pig]

Or you can pound Jethro's total failure to actually adduce any evidence that my interpretation was incorrect. Well, YOU can't or won't do that, but I already did.

You did no such thing.

[One Bad Pig]

Doesn't the Bible say that the remission of sins occurs as a result of being baptized?

If baptism is a matter of obedience, and it leads to the remission of sins, then apparently obedience is a condition for the remission of sins.

Upon further reflection, I agree with this.

'Scuse me while I go dine on crow.

[Bill the Cat]

Doesn't the Bible say that the remission of sins occurs as a result of being baptized?

If baptism is a matter of obedience, and it leads to the remission of sins, then apparently obedience is a condition for the remission of sins.

But let's look at the first New Testament chronological use of "the remission of sin"

Luk 3:2 Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.
Luk 3:3 And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;


Was John preaching salvation? Or was he preaching repentance and baptism as matters of justification?

[One Bad Pig]

But let's look at the first New Testament chronological use of "the remission of sin"

Luk 3:2 Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.
Luk 3:3 And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;


Was John preaching salvation? Or was he preaching repentance and baptism as matters of justification?

John was preaching repentance and baptism for the remission of sins. The remission of sins is necessary for salvation, but not synonymous with it as far as I can see.

[Bill the Cat]

John was preaching repentance and baptism for the remission of sins. The remission of sins is necessary for salvation, but not synonymous with it as far as I can see.

And there is more than just one way listed to receive the remission of sin in the NT, is there not?

Act 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

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

Heb 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

[One Bad Pig]

And there is more than just one way listed to receive the remission of sin in the NT, is there not?

Act 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

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

Heb 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

I'm not so sure about that. Baptism is involved in the Acts 10 narrative, though not done in the usual order. Hebrews 9 is referring to the necessity of Jesus' death on the cross, without which water baptism would not be efficacious. Heb 9:22 may well be used to affirm that martyrdom is a 'baptism by blood', but that's an exception to the rule.

I'll note, however, that if baptism is for the remission of sins, proxy baptism is ruled out. Baptism is not simply an action that needs to be performed, but an act of cooperation with God whereby our sins are remitted.

[Bill the Cat]

I'm not so sure about that. Baptism is involved in the Acts 10 narrative, though not done in the usual order. Hebrews 9 is referring to the necessity of Jesus' death on the cross, without which water baptism would not be efficacious. Heb 9:22 may well be used to affirm that martyrdom is a 'baptism by blood', but that's an exception to the rule.

I'll note, however, that if baptism is for the remission of sins, proxy baptism is ruled out. Baptism is not simply an action that needs to be performed, but an act of cooperation with God whereby our sins are remitted.

And this rounds us back to the Old Testament saints and their sins and lack of baptism. I've argued the case in the "Is Baptism required for salvation" thread. I understand just how intimately baptism and salvation are coupled in the early church, and I am not suggesting that it is unnecessary for a Disciple. I'm just saying that if one dies before baptism, but accepts Christ by faith, then they will not be turned away by Christ due to lack of a ritual.

[One Bad Pig]

And this rounds us back to the Old Testament saints and their sins and lack of baptism.

The Old Testament saints were under the Mosaic (and earlier) covenants, who shed the blood of bulls and goats for the forgiveness of their sins. We, however, are under the New Covenant.

I've argued the case in the "Is Baptism required for salvation" thread. I understand just how intimately baptism and salvation are coupled in the early church, and I am not suggesting that it is unnecessary for a Disciple. I'm just saying that if one dies before baptism, but accepts Christ by faith, then they will not be turned away by Christ due to lack of a ritual.

If one does not have the opportunity to be baptized before death, I agree with you; catechumens who die before being received into the Orthodox Church are accorded an Orthodox burial. If the opportunity was there, but not taken, that's between them and God.

[Bill the Cat]

The Old Testament saints were under the Mosaic (and earlier) covenants, who shed the blood of bulls and goats for the forgiveness of their sins. We, however, are under the New Covenant.

But the Mosaic covenant was not salvific. So, obedience to its sommands was insufficient to save anyone. However, Hebrews shows us that faith itself was what justified those before Christ, without baptism.

If one does not have the opportunity to be baptized before death, I agree with you; catechumens who die before being received into the Orthodox Church are accorded an Orthodox burial. If the opportunity was there, but not taken, that's between them and God.

True, and I agree. I am not dispariging baptism at all. I am just arguing that it is not a requirement like faith is - meaning that if the "box" isn't checked beside baptism, that does not automatically disqualify someone from heaven.

[One Bad Pig]

But the Mosaic covenant was not salvific. So, obedience to its sommands was insufficient to save anyone. However, Hebrews shows us that faith itself was what justified those before Christ, without baptism.

Mere obedience to its commands was insufficient, sure. However, I don't agree that the Mosaic covenant was not salvific; people who followed it by faith were saved, after all.

[Bill the Cat]

Mere obedience to its commands was insufficient, sure. However, I don't agree that the Mosaic covenant was not salvific; people who followed it by faith were saved, after all.

It was their faith that saved them.

[One Bad Pig]

It was their faith that saved them.

Close. It was their obedience through faith that saved them.

James 2:22-24 NKJV

²² Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? ²³ And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”[a] And he was called the friend of God. ²⁴ You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

Psalm 106:28-31

²⁸ They joined themselves also to Baal of Peor,
And ate sacrifices made to the dead.
²⁹ Thus they provoked Him to anger with their deeds,
And the plague broke out among them.
³⁰ Then Phinehas stood up and intervened,
And the plague was stopped.
³¹ And that was accounted to him for righteousness
To all generations forevermore.

Also see Hebrews 11 passim, with its many examples of "By faith, [Name] [action]. . . . "