Poll on what Acts 2:38 was intended to mean

[Cow Poke]

I agree with all that.

Now, Jeff, I'm getting REALLY sick and tired of... of.... oh... you agree?

[nrajeff]

Now, Jeff, I'm getting REALLY sick and tired of... of.... oh... you agree?

I am able to do that, and even willing sometimes, contrary to popular opinion.

[nrajeff]

Here is another statement attributed to an Early Christian leader, and it, like the others, supports the idea that forgiveness of sins comes after repentance and baptism, not before:

ST. CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE (c. 200 - 258 A.D.)

[When] they receive also the Baptism of the Church...then finally can they be fully sanctified and be the sons of God...since it is written, "Except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (Letters 71[72]:1)

[It] behooves those to be baptized...so that they are prepared, in the lawful and true and only Baptism of the holy Church, by divine regeneration, for the kingdom of God...because it is written, "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (Letters 72[73]:21)

If this is reliable, it seems to suggest that regeneration and full sanctification cannot happen until baptism happens first. Which, of course, militates against Sparko's (and the other 9 of you) interpretation that has the remission of sins, and presumably regeneration, occurring before a person's repentance and baptism.

I am not sure where to go from here. I have a few more ECF quotes that support the position of the "no" voters, so I may post those and then look for an interpretation of Acts 2: 38 from someone at least as expert as John Reece, if such a person exists. Beyond that, I am at a loss as to what it would take in the way of evidence that would make you "yes" voters rethink your position. Adding more onto what is already a mountain of evidence seems unlikely to change minds, if the current mountain was insufficient.

[One Bad Pig]

Here is another statement attributed to an Early Christian leader, and it, like the others, supports the idea that forgiveness of sins comes after repentance and baptism, not before:

ST. CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE (c. 200 - 258 A.D.)

[When] they receive also the Baptism of the Church...then finally can they be fully sanctified and be the sons of God...since it is written, "Except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (Letters 71[72]:1)

[It] behooves those to be baptized...so that they are prepared, in the lawful and true and only Baptism of the holy Church, by divine regeneration, for the kingdom of God...because it is written, "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (Letters 72[73]:21)

If this is reliable, it seems to suggest that regeneration and full sanctification cannot happen until baptism happens first.

Actually, it suggests that regeneration occurs during baptism. Baptism was considered the "laver of regeneration" (Titus 3:5). That is why people were clothed in white after baptism (which was originally done nude) as a sign that they had been cleansed and illuminated. Even in many Protestant churches today, the baptizand is clothed in white for the ceremony.

[nrajeff]

Actually, it suggests that regeneration occurs during baptism. Baptism was considered the "laver of regeneration" (Titus 3:5). That is why people were clothed in white after baptism (which was originally done nude) as a sign that they had been cleansed and illuminated. Even in many Protestant churches today, the baptizand is clothed in white for the ceremony.

A fair statement, IMO. I probably should have just said that it appears that regeneration doesn't occur before baptism. I want to see what Baker's New Testament Commentary says about Acts 2:38, but I can't find it online and I don't want to spend $100-$200 on the set.

[Cow Poke]

A fair statement, IMO. I probably should have just said that it appears that regeneration doesn't occur before baptism. I want to see what Baker's New Testament Commentary says about Acts 2:38, but I can't find it online and I don't want to spend $100-$200 on the set.

You can get it here for $60.

Meanwhile, you reminded me that I have the Zodhiates / Baker Complete Word Study Bible...

Zodhiates, S., & Baker, W. (2000)

Ac 2:38—The main verb in this verse is metanoḗsate (3340), meaning “repent.” This refers to that initial repentance of a sinner unto salvation. The verb translated “be baptized” is in the indirect passive imperative of baptízō (907) which means that it does not have the same force as the direct command of “repent.” The preposition “for” in the phrase “for the remission of sins” in Greek is eis (1519), “unto.” Literally, it means “for the purpose of identifying you with the remission of sins.” This same preposition is used in 1 Corinthians 10:2 in the phrase “and were all baptized unto [eis] Moses.” These people were identifying themselves with the work and ministry of Moses. Repentance is something that concerns an individual and God, while baptism is intended to be a testimony to other people. That is why baptisthḗtō, “to be baptized,” is in the passive voice indicating that one does not baptize himself, but he is baptized by another usually in the presence of others.

Zodhiates, S., & Baker, W. (2000). The complete word study Bible : King James Version (electronic ed.). Chattanooga: AMG Publishers.

© source where applicable

[One Bad Pig]

You can get it here for $60.

Meanwhile, you reminded me that I have the Zodhiates / Baker Complete Word Study Bible...

Zodhiates, S., & Baker, W. (2000)

Ac 2:38—The main verb in this verse is metanoḗsate (3340), meaning “repent.” This refers to that initial repentance of a sinner unto salvation. The verb translated “be baptized” is in the indirect passive imperative of baptízō (907) which means that it does not have the same force as the direct command of “repent.” The preposition “for” in the phrase “for the remission of sins” in Greek is eis (1519), “unto.” Literally, it means “for the purpose of identifying you with the remission of sins.” This same preposition is used in 1 Corinthians 10:2 in the phrase “and were all baptized unto [eis] Moses.” These people were identifying themselves with the work and ministry of Moses. Repentance is something that concerns an individual and God, while baptism is intended to be a testimony to other people. That is why baptisthḗtō, “to be baptized,” is in the passive voice indicating that one does not baptize himself, but he is baptized by another usually in the presence of others.

Zodhiates, S., & Baker, W. (2000). The complete word study Bible : King James Version (electronic ed.). Chattanooga: AMG Publishers.

© source where applicable

That's an interesting attempted parallel, but I don't think it fits well; in 1 Cor 10:2, there was no command, and it's not even speaking of literal baptism. "Literally" above also appears to be used figuratively for "in my opinion." Lastly, baptism is indeed something that concerns an individual and God; and since it is not necessarily done in the presence of others, it is more than just a testimony to other people. Was the Philippian jailor baptized as a testimony to others? How about the Ethiopian eunuch?

[nrajeff]

That's an interesting attempted parallel, but I don't think it fits well; in 1 Cor 10:2, there was no command, and it's not even speaking of literal baptism. "Literally" above also appears to be used figuratively for "in my opinion." Lastly, baptism is indeed something that concerns an individual and God; and since it is not necessarily done in the presence of others, it is more than just a testimony to other people. Was the Philippian jailor baptized as a testimony to others? How about the Ethiopian eunuch?

Thanks for that insight. And it looks like this statement attributed to Irenaeus goes along with it:

"It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [it served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions; being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: "Unless a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." John 3:5

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0134.htm

[nrajeff]

I just found a site called EvangelismHelp.com and it addresses part of the issue at hand. Its reasoning seems to be that since the ECFs were closer to Apostolic-era Christianity than, say, Reformation-based Christianity, the scriptural exegesis of the ECFs should be more accurate or authoritative where there is a question as to which group is correct.

It asks: "What should really be considered “Orthodox” teaching about baptism?"

And quotes such writers as Barnabas:

Barnabas wrote in 70 AD, “Blessed are they who, placing their trust in the cross, have gone down into the water; for, says He, they shall receive their reward in due time…we indeed descend into the water full of sins and defilement, but come up, bearing fruit in our heart, having the fear [of God] and trust in Jesus in our spirit.” (The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 1, The Epistle of Barnabas 11:114-16)
http://evangelismhelp.com/category/e...-early-church/


And concludes: "The Christian leaders nearest to the time of the Apostles taught these things about baptism! Why is it that this teaching has changed so much in the last 1900 years? (mainly AFTER the time of Calvin and Luther)"


I should add that it does include a quote from the Clementine Recognitions, however.

But my question is: Is that conclusion accurate? Is Sparko's interpretation of the phrase "baptism for the remission of sins" one that evolved relatively recently in Christian history?

As we have seen, there is evidence that the contra-Sparko interpretation--the one that interprets the phrase as meaning "baptism SO THAT your sins may/will be forgiven"--existed in Christianity at least as early as 160-180 A.D, and was championed by at least some of its prominent leaders.

So when did the interpretation subscribed to by Sparko (and others who someone has perhaps recruited to vote along with him) emerge into Christianity as a doctrine subscribed to by significant numbers of Christians?

Another question, for anyone who knows the answer: What percentage of today's Christians subscribe to the Sparko interpretation of Acts 2:38?

[Sparko]

The Sparko interpretation? Really? You seem to take this all very personally Jeff.

PS, do you agree with the bit you said about:
"Its reasoning seems to be that since the ECFs were closer to Apostolic-era Christianity than, say, Reformation-based Christianity, the scriptural exegesis of the ECFs should be more accurate or authoritative where there is a question as to which group is correct. "??

Or was that just another convenient "factoid" that you are happy to use if it serves your purpose, but will drop like a hot potato when it is pointed out to you that logically then, that leaves the LDS church out in the cold since the early writings of the ECFs do nothing to support the LDS claims of apostasy of the church, nor or any of the current LDS doctrines, and since the LDS church is the at the far end of the line, it's authoritativeness is least of all?

[nrajeff]

The Sparko interpretation?

You championed it as being the correct way to interpret the verse, so when I decided to do the poll, I thought it would be okay to give you some credit for it. I have been fairly consistent in referring to it that way throughout this thread, I think.

Really? You seem to take this all very personally Jeff.

It did seem to start out as a debate between your version of what the verse was meant to mean, and mine, but you don't need to take it personally if you don't want to. It's just a simple, easy way to identify the hypothesis.

PS, do you agree with the bit you said about:
"Its reasoning seems to be that since the ECFs were closer to Apostolic-era Christianity than, say, Reformation-based Christianity, the scriptural exegesis of the ECFs should be more accurate or authoritative where there is a question as to which group is correct. "??

If I didn't believe that in the matter of which interpretation of Acts 2:38 is correct, the ECFs count as evidence, then I probably wouldn't have cited them in this thread.

...the early writings of the ECFs do nothing to support the LDS claims of apostasy of the church...

Among your off-topic red-herring attempts to get attention away from the evidence that hurts your interpretation of Acts 2:38, that particular part is one I think you could start your own thread on, and I would be happy to challenge.

But this thread is the Acts 2:38 thread, and so far, the evidence that your side has provided to support your interpretation of it seems to be much less substantial than the evidence that has been provided that refutes it.

My next post will cite some respected Bible commentaries--as more evidence that your interpretation of Acts 2:38 is incorrect.

[nrajeff]

I started looking at some of the Bible commentaries that are accessible at Studylight.org and I may not have to spend too much money buying commentaries after all. Studylight is like BibleGateway in that you have access to material that if you had to buy it all, it would cost you thousands of dollars.

Here is part of the entry on Acts 2:38 in Coffman's Commentaries on the Bible :

...categorically affirmed here by inspiration, namely, that a man must repent and be baptized in order to receive the forgiveness of his sins and the gift of the Spirit....it is devoutly hoped that men will come to accept what is so patently stated in the text before us, namely, that forgiveness of sins and the gift of God's Spirit are promised AFTER both repentance and baptism (also after faith), obedience of the believer to BOTH requirements being made an absolute precondition of salvation.
http://www2.studylight.org/com/bcc/v...&ch=2&vs=38-38


My next post will cite a different commentary's exegesis of the verse.

[nrajeff]

From Matthew Henry's Complete Commentary on the Bible:

"It shall be for the remission of sins. Repent of your sin, and it shall not be your ruin be baptized into the faith of Christ, and in truth you shall be justified, which you could never be by the law of Moses. Aim at this, and depend upon Christ for it, and this you shall have. As the cup in the Lord's supper is the New Testament in the blood of Christ for the remission of sins, so baptism is in the name of Christ for the remission of sins. Be washed, and you shall be washed."
http://www2.studylight.org/com/mhm/v...&ch=2&vs=37-41
(emphasis mine in both this citation and the preceding one)

Both of the commentaries I cited make it unmistakably clear what their position is on the issue: "Baptism for the remission of sins" means baptism so that remission of sins can follow afterward.

Sparko, I realize that you chose to bail out earlier as far as providing evidence to back up your version of what the verse really was intended to mean, but I do wonder what you (and the other TWEBbers who signed onto your version) are thinking by now, in the face of the mountain of evidence that militates against your version being correct.

[Cow Poke]

RATS!

I just typed a long reply to this, but Firefox and/or Tweb "blinked" and it was all gone.

Anyway....

Jeff... this has obviously been a topic of debate for many years. You will continue to find "evidence" to support your side, in the "opinions of men". This is something we have been scolded about "following".

ANYWAY, there is obviously "evidence" on the "other side", as well.

Here's my bigger concern --- It's hard for me to believe that something so vital -- Salvation -- comes down to the interpretation of one word in one verse of Scripture. If, in fact, Baptism were NECESSARY for Salvation, it seems that it would be a recurring theme throughout the NT.

As a Pastor, I have had a number of converts who, for various reasons, were physically unable to be baptized by immersion. I believe their willingness and faith were "counted for righteousness". I remember two, in particular, who wanted to be baptized badly enough that they worked with me in creative solutions. One was a very obese lady who was wheel-chair bound, and unable to walk at all. We, the Church, went to a local hotel that had a swimming pool with nice wide shallow steps, and we (me and a bunch of deacons) wheeled her down the steps into the water, and baptized her in her wheelchair.

Your "poll" shows that 64% of respondents disagree with you. Is the poll useless? (actually, I don't believe Scripture meanings should be decided by majority rule )

Are you "more correct" if you find more citations or opinions than the other guy?

[Cow Poke]

Oh... I mentioned two examples, but gave one... the other one was a man who had multiple chronically open wounds that would not heal. He actually asked his wound therapist to come to Church, 'waterproof him' for Baptism, then redress the wounds after the Baptism. He wasn't worried about his "Salvation" -- but he wanted to be obedient to the teachings of the NT.