Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
I Peter 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:
Peter says in Ac. 2:38 " the remission of sins" but in 1 Pt. 3:21 he writes that it does not "put away the filth of the flesh but does provide a "good conscience toward God."
Would a correct interpataion be that baptism allows us to have a "good conscience" to serve God; that it gives us the will (want to), but that it does not "wash away" our sins; it does not "put away the filth of the flesh."
Therefore, remission of sins in baptism=not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but a conscience toward God.
Not to rehash old arguments, but there are Greek experts who say "for the remission/forgiveness of sins" means "in order to obtain remission/forgiveness of sins" and there are other Greek experts who say "for the remission/forgiveness of sins" means "because of the remission/forgiveness of sins." I don't know Greek so I can't be an authority on it but the authorities don't even agree among themselves.
"answer" can mean "response" so "answer of a good conscience" could also mean "the response of a good conscience" i.e. that a person is baptized because their conscience is already clear with God.
Then there are those who look to the original text and explain how some of the terms are plural and some are singular and when matched up together would render that in modern English as "Y'all repent for the remission/forgiveness of y'all's sins and let each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ."
__________________
Sam also known as Jim Ellis
Apostolic in doctrine
Pentecostal in experience
Charismatic in practice
Non-denominational in affiliation
Inter-denominational in fellowship
In my opinion, the baptism ritual is a symbolic washing,
just like in the communion ritual the matzo is the symbolic body of Jesus
and the wine is the symbolic blood of Jesus.
I can serve someone communion and say, "This is the body of Christ broken for you and this is the blood of Christ freely given for you," but that does not turn them into the actual body and blood of Christ.
__________________
Sam also known as Jim Ellis
Apostolic in doctrine
Pentecostal in experience
Charismatic in practice
Non-denominational in affiliation
Inter-denominational in fellowship
In my opinion, the baptism ritual is a symbolic washing,
just like in the communion ritual the matzo is the symbolic body of Jesus
and the wine is the symbolic blood of Jesus.
I can serve someone communion and say, "This is the body of Christ broken for you and this is the blood of Christ freely given for you," but that does not turn them into the actual body and blood of Christ.
I know many are bored with this topic but I have never discussed it before.
That is where I am coming from. I am really having a problem when I hear people preach that the water will wash away our sins and many apostolics I know preach this way. But to me that discounts the blood. I think the blood fully effectual to remit sins and baptism cleanses the sin conscience. To say that the water remits sin, to me, cheapens the blood of Christ.
I know many are bored with this topic but I have never discussed it before.
That is where I am coming from. I am really having a problem when I hear people preach that the water will wash away our sins and many apostolics I know preach this way. But to me that discounts the blood. I think the blood fully effectual to remit sins and baptism cleanses the sin conscience. To say that the water remits sin, to me, cheapens the blood of Christ.
Does that make sense?
This is because many don't teach about the union of the water and blood. From Christ's side he gave birth to the church. When you look at the symbology of what came from his side was.. Water AND Blood. There is a reason why this is mentioned. It points to that which died and atoned and that which brings forth life are togethor. Notice in the old covenant water was used as well to bring about covenant. Water always has a very strong symbolic power by which God has used to complete faith and covenant. God has chosen this place as the place of "faithFULLNESS" .... the place in which your faith is completed or made perfect. Faith iis just mental assent unless one does what is compelled to bring it to it's completion. Obediance unto God's Word(faith) is always the very aspect of salvation. Faith alone does nothing.
Not to rehash old arguments, but there are Greek experts who say "for the remission/forgiveness of sins" means "in order to obtain remission/forgiveness of sins" and there are other Greek experts who say "for the remission/forgiveness of sins" means "because of the remission/forgiveness of sins." I don't know Greek so I can't be an authority on it but the authorities don't even agree among themselves.
"answer" can mean "response" so "answer of a good conscience" could also mean "the response of a good conscience" i.e. that a person is baptized because their conscience is already clear with God.
Then there are those who look to the original text and explain how some of the terms are plural and some are singular and when matched up together would render that in modern English as "Y'all repent for the remission/forgiveness of y'all's sins and let each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ."
I have heard these arguments over the original Greek in Acts 2:38, and they all sound like Bill Clinton when he said, "it depends on what the definition of is, is."
First of all if it really means what they say, then why do none of the translations of the Bible have like it that? I have looked at MANY English translations, and 4 or 5 Spanish. They all agree. In other words, there are no translations that would support their opinion of the Greek.
Secondly, baptism for the remission sins in not only found in Acts 2:38. There are numerous Old Testament types going all the way back to the book of Exodus that give clear indication what baptism is for. How can we ignore that??? Also, what about Romans 6 and Acts 22:16???
TRW
Last edited by Tim Wiggins; 07-16-2008 at 10:20 AM.
Reason: correct mistakes
I have heard these arguments over the original Greek in Acts 2:38, and they all sound like Bill Clinton when he said, "it depends on what the definition of is, is."
First of all if it really means what they say, then why do none of the translations of the Bible have like it that? I have looked at MANY English translations, and 4 or 5 Spanish. They all agree. In other words, there are no translations that would support their opinion of the Greek.
Secondly, baptism for the remission sins in not only found in Acts 2:38. There are numerous Old Testament types going all the way back to the book of Exodus that give clear indication what baptism is for. How can we ignore that??? Also, what about Romans 6 and Acts 22:16???
TRW
Good answer! Good answer!
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
I must disagree, Ferd. It's not a good answer and it is a poor example. Bill Clinton's comment wanted to give multiple definitions to the word "is". Those who seek to separate remittance and forgiveness attempt to do the same thing with the Greek, give the same word multiple meanings and they get to choose which meaning it has based on what they want the verse to say.
The fact is the Scripture does not distinguish between the two.
Sam is correct on this.
__________________
"Beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow." ~Aesop
I must disagree, Ferd. It's not a good answer and it is a poor example. Bill Clinton's comment wanted to give multiple definitions to the word "is". Those who seek to separate remittance and forgiveness attempt to do the same thing with the Greek, give the same word multiple meanings and they get to choose which meaning it has based on what they want the verse to say.
The fact is the Scripture does not distinguish between the two.
Sam is correct on this.
No sir. eis (FOR) found in Acts 2:38 gets to mean mulitple things!
that IS the arguement. what does it mean HERE.
I still say Brother Wiggens post was dead on accurate.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
I have heard these arguments over the original Greek in Acts 2:38, and they all sound like Bill Clinton when he said, "it depends on what the definition of is, is."
First of all if it really means what they say, then why do none of the translations of the Bible have like it that? I have looked at MANY English translations, and 4 or 5 Spanish. They all agree. In other words, there are no translations that would support their opinion of the Greek.
Secondly, baptism for the remission sins in not only found in Acts 2:38. There are numerous Old Testament types going all the way back to the book of Exodus that give clear indication what baptism is for. How can we ignore that??? Also, what about Romans 6 and Acts 22:16???
Hybrid Mode
