UPC doctrinal contradiction

[TheLegalist]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

2:38-39. Peter’s answer was forthright. First they were to repent. This verb (metanoēsate) means “change your outlook,” or “have a change of heart; reverse the direction of your life.” This obviously results in a change of conduct, but the emphasis is on the mind or outlook. The Jews had rejected Jesus; now they were to trust in Him. Repentance was repeatedly part of the apostles’ message in Acts (v. 38; 3:19; 5:31; 8:22; 11:18; 13:24; 17:30; 19:4; 20:21; 26:20).
A problem revolves around the command “be baptized” and its connection with the remainder of 2:38. There are several views: (1) One is that both repentance and baptism result in remission of sins. In this view, baptism is essential for salvation. The problem with this interpretation is that elsewhere in Scripture forgiveness of sins is based on faith alone (John 3:16, 36; Rom. 4:1-17; 11:6; Gal. 3:8-9; Eph. 2:8-9; etc.). Furthermore Peter, the same speaker, later promised forgiveness of sins on the basis of faith alone (Acts 5:31; 10:43; 13:38; 26:18).
(2) A second interpretation translates 2:38, “Be baptized … on the basis of the remission of your sins.” The preposition used here is eis which, with the accusative case, may mean “on account of, on the basis of.” It is used in this way in Matthew 3:11; 12:41; and Mark 1:4. Though it is possible for this construction to mean “on the basis of,” this is not its normal meaning; eis with the accusative case usually describes purpose or direction.
(3) A third view takes the clause and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ as parenthetical. Several factors support this interpretation: (a) The verb makes a distinction between singular and plural verbs and nouns. The verb “repent” is plural and so is the pronoun “your” in the clause so that your sins may be forgiven (lit., “unto the remission of your sins,” eis aphesin tōn hamartiōn hymōn). Therefore the verb “repent” must go with the purpose of forgiveness of sins. On the other hand the imperative “be baptized” is singular, setting it off from the rest of the sentence. (b) This concept fits with Peter’s proclamation in Acts 10:43 in which the same expression “sins may be forgiven” (aphesin hamartiōn) occurs. There it is granted on the basis of faith alone. (c) In Luke 24:47 and Acts 5:31 the same writer, Luke, indicates that repentance results in remission of sins.
Walvoord, J. F., Zuck, R. B., & Dallas Theological Seminary. (1983-). The Bible knowledge commentary : An exposition of the scriptures (Ac 2:38–39). Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.

what direction does "repent" give in the text? Most show Peter's statement of "repentance" as a directive or motion toward and it's purpose toward baptism. Thus they are tied togethor. It seems to me to be a direction change resulting in reliance by faith in the working of God in baptism. Thus the turning is a change of reliance to God's work in baptism. Repentance is always seen with a goal and that goal in of repentance is unification with Christ in covenant and newness of life at baptism cf Romans 6.

[TheLegalist]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

He essentially said, how you view baptism is how you will translate or interpret this verse because the grammar does not determine if this is "for the remission" or "because of remission"

Either way baptism has a reason, the forgiveness of sins. Either way, baptism is a command, not a recommendation

I would agree but commands have purpose not simply meaningless symbolism without spiritual reality to him. They have reality with God and Paul clearly teaches why in Romans 6 and Colossians 2.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by TheLegalist

I would agree but commands have purpose not simply meaningless symbolism without spiritual reality to him. They have reality with God and Paul clearly teaches why in Romans 6 and Colossians 2.

Repentance is a command, yet it's not the mere act of repentance that does anything. He is the one that forgives because/when we repent and have faith.

Same goes with baptism. Baptism itself does not confer anything. That should be one reason why we should reject HMH and the extremes we have seen of ladies laying their hair on a person etc..

Here is my perspective. Nobody ever questioned baptism. It always seemes to have been the immediate reaction to hearing and believing the gospel. The disciples of john, upon hearing of Christ were rebaptized in His name.

At what point a person is saved was never a question or an issue. It seems almost irrelevant. It's more the Western mind that questions everything. In the bible they just submitted.

[TheLegalist]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Repentance is a command, yet it's not the mere act of repentance that does anything. He is the one that forgives because/when we repent and have faith.

Same goes with baptism. Baptism itself does not confer anything. That should be one reason why we should reject HMH and the extremes we have seen of ladies laying their hair on a person etc..

Here is my perspective. Nobody ever questioned baptism. It always seemes to have been the immediate reaction to hearing and believing the gospel. The disciples of john, upon hearing of Christ were rebaptized in His name.

At what point a person is saved was never a question or an issue. It seems almost irrelevant. It's more the Western mind that questions everything. In the bible they just submitted.

being put in water and dipped in itself means nothing. FAITH in the working of God gives it authority by the power of his name! Baptism is clearly taught at the point of time we are united with him. Baptism can be seen as the alter/place of sacrifice in which we are united in is death by FAITH in God's working. As repentance has us placing ourselves on his mercy by our pure offering of the heart that is not at enmity with him to be united with him.

Also to your point of "immediate reaction to hearing" that show exactly my point in which "repentance" has direction. To change or turn has a point to turn to. It's goal or end result of turning was unification with Him which was seen at baptism by faith.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by ouden katakrim

LOL. I don't cringe because God actually does pull the trigger... the calvinist in me cringes when folks say they're the shooter.

ouden

I didn't like the whole "bullet-powder-cartridge" metaphor to begin with. Salvation isn't something that we're supposed to assemble out in the garage like a reloading kit for our hunting rounds.

Salvation is a gift, and the gift comes in a complete package. "No Assembly Required." It's ready to go. We just need to begin living that new life.

That's what got me onto the "loaded gun" metaphor. These other guys were assembling bullets from small parts - I'm just saying that the gift is already assembled and ready to be used. I wish they were already using a different metaphor than "bullets," then I could have used something a little less explosive as well.

Sorry ouden.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by TheLegalist

You said it was poor grammer... MY point was that is your opinion. Thus, so says you!

Read his "sentence." I think even the writer would agree that he needed a comma instead of a period at the point I marked "[SIC]." I just found it ironic that in an argument concerning grammar, Padfield chooses a source with a grammatical error in it.

Originally Posted by TheLegalist

The vast majority clearly point our "eis" is with purpose or in order to obtain and it's not a 50/50 thing.

NO! Every source YOU cited said it could go either way. Just because you're not reading your own source material, it doesn't stand to reason that they say what you want them to say.

Padfield erred, badly. You have followed his error. Read the source material that you yourself posted. All of them said it could either be "repent" or "baptism" that is being modified by the prepositional phrase beginning with "eis" in Acts 2:39.

Originally Posted by TheLegalist

My point is with in mind "he came to save us from our sins" thus baptism is related to saving us which "has relationship" directly to removal of sins taking away. If you are wanting a more "didactic" reading with relative words it would be Romans 6, Colossians 2 and Acts 22:16 with IMO Acts 2:38. If you want inference we can go further as you know.

I'm sorry, but I don't really follow the reasoning in the bolded part above. The fact that "he came to save us from our sins" would at least appear to indicate that HE SAVES us and not we ourselves. That salvation is the gift of God, not of works lest any should boast (See Ephesians 2:8-10).

We are HIS workmanship. We are indeed created "for good works in Christ;" but the subject of this thread concerns salvation and the remission of sins. On this point I wholeheartedly agree with the UPCI's Articles of Faith. The remission of sins occurs at repentance.

Originally Posted by TheLegalist

Mat 5:23 So then, if you bring your gift to the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you,
Mat 5:24 leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother and then come and present your gift.

it may be for the innocent but not likely as it is something "properly" against him. something "just" just as the following verse points of agreeing quickly or thrown in jail. The context is a "just" complaint and not innocent.

"rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee: hath anything to charge thee with; any just ground of complaint against thee; if thou hast done him any injury, or given him any offence: particularly, if he had at any time said Raca to him, or called him "fool" for those words have reference to what goes before, and are a corollary, or conclusion from them, as appears from the causal particle "therefore". Gill

if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught — of just complaint “against thee.” JFB

The key is any possible injury one may have caused. The point is relating to GOD and his acceptance of offering. It is principle in teaching of how one must be before offering to God. So also are we to be of heart before baptism in that we are truly turned to him as a acceptable offering of heart to be united with Him in baptism/covenant of agreement.

I agree with what you appear to be saying concerning the need for sincerity in repentance. We could also add John the Baptist's words, "Bring forth fruit, meet (or acceptable) for repentance." Get the repentance done correctly and sincerely! If that's what you're saying then I'm in your "Amen! corner."

However, to try and tie Matthew 5, up along with the commands to right any wrongs one might have committed as being a "Type" of baptism is inaccurate in my view. Matthew 5, is dealing with how to obtain a right standing before God. For whatever reasons, Jesus simply never brought up water baptism in this context.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by TheLegalist

To acknowledge the "blur" the way they do, and say that "for" (Greek "eis") could refer to either "baptism" or "repentance" is NOT to say that this "CLEARLY" refers to "baptism" alone as your creed wants to make it out to be.

"eis" is very clear and the vast majority say so.

uh... "My creed" - or "my position" rather - clearly DOES NOT want to say that "eis" refers to "baptism alone." You've got the wrong guy here.

I've said - and I'm in agreement with the list of sources that both you and Padfield cited, that it could go either way.

"Be baptized because your sins have been forgiven..." or "Be baptized in order that you sins may be forgiven..."

It could go either way in Acts 2:38, when we consider this verse alone. We simply need more information to understand just how this was intended. According to your earlier "cut-and-paste" it would appear that "the scholars" agree.

You and Padfield the Campbellite were simply "quote mining" and not paying attention to your sources.

Originally Posted by TheLegalist

Baptism is clearly linked to the application of his blood/death and sacrifice on our lives per Romans 6. We come into covenant/abide with him at baptism.

There's a start... but you said that you had "many" NT citations for this. I'll reconsider Romans 6, for you. I'll also take a look at Colossians 2. But where are "the many" examples?

[pelathais]

TL had asserted: "Baptism is clearly seen MANY times in the NT as having relationship to removal of sin."

I had asked TL for at least four examples where this is done in the NT. The number "four" came up because of his claim for "many" and not "a few" or even "a couple." TL has offered the following list of passages.

Now remember, what we are looking for is something that clarifies the "it could go either way" nature of the question concerning the word "for" (Greek "eis") in Acts 2:38. TheLegalist had posted a series of comments from some very excellent scholars that had been collected by a Campbellite named "Padfield" that tended to emphasize the ambiguity of Acts 2:38. Despite having these scholars who unanimously stated there was ambiguity in Acts 2:38, at their fingertips, both TL and "Padfield" insist that the matter is "clear."

Let's consider:

"Romans 6, Colossians 2 and Acts 22:16 with IMO (TL's opinion) Acts 2:38."

Well, first of all that's only three examples. You can't count Acts 2:38 as an example of a verse that clears up the meaning of Acts 2:38. Anyhoo...

How does Romans 6 (particularly Romans 6:4?) help us to understand the "remission of sins" phrase in Acts 2:38?

Paul opens chapter 6 with a rhetorical question for the Roman believers. Should the believer continue in sin? The obvious answer here is "no." The sinful life of the believer has been "buried" like a dead man in the waters of baptism. Of interest to this discussion is the question, "Did the burial kill the old man? Or, was the old man buried because he was already 'dead?'"

Paul answers this in Romans 6:6. We are "crucified" with Christ when we convert. Our repentance is the "death" in this picture. The "burial" is a consequence of the fact that we have "died." Galatians 5:24, expands this thought further. The sin is "crucified" with Christ when we repent.

So, it is the death of Jesus Christ on the cross that our repentance actually seeks to emulate. And what does His death on the cross signify for us?

In 1 Corinthians 1:17, Paul actually contrasts "the cross" (death/repentance) with baptism (burial). He states that Christ has sent him to preach the Gospel. Paul then adds that if he were to preach the Gospel "with wisdom of words" that the "cross of Christ" would be "made of none effect."

So the preaching of the cross is the preaching of the Gospel. The matter of baptism, while important in its own right, is still something else from the "preaching of the Gospel." And, what does the preaching of the Gospel produce?

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek," Romans 1:16.

Preaching the cross (the Gospel) brings about the power of God "unto salvation."

The people that heard Paul in Corinth and responded to his preaching of the cross (the Gospel) received "the power of God unto salvation." They were saved - and saved by the power of God. These newly saved Christian believers would then be baptized by the leaders of the Christian community in Corinth.

Now, baptism does obviously obtain some merit for the one being baptized. It is NOT an empty ritual devoid of any significance. First of all, baptism is a statement by the one being baptized that they have chosen to live a different life and to serve a different Lord. Who is this new Lord that they have chosen to serve? Listen for his name to be spoken at some point of the act of baptism.

I think we as OPs have often erred in making baptism into something that "the preacher" (or whoever) does to the one being baptized. Baptism is an act of choice much like the children of Israel when they stood on the shores of the Red Sea.

The "natural man" would scoff at the notion that these waters represented a "path" toward safety and salvation. The natural man sees only water, and living human bein gs cannot survive immersed in water. "This isn't safety! (salvation). This is folly," cries the natural man (Exodus 14:10-12).

However, that "natural man" is dead when he appears on the "shores" of the waters of baptism. Instead, we have a "new creature" - we have someone who has been in the presence of God, like Moses on the Mount. This "new man," this "new creature" also has "the power of God unto salvation" and will part the waters of baptism as Moses did to the sea.

Thus, the believer is not some weakling being led from the hay and saw dust of the altar of repentance to the trough of baptism. The new believer is a conqueror. The new believer has used the waters of baptism to make a difference between himself/herself and the enemy. This believer now rises up to a new life in Christ (Romans 6:1-12).

The waters of baptism here are not something that washes "filth from the flesh" (1 Peter 3:21). The waters of baptism are a path that only a determined and powerful creature can tread. "Powerful" with the power of God!

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by TheLegalist

I would agree but commands have purpose not simply meaningless symbolism without spiritual reality to him. They have reality with God and Paul clearly teaches why in Romans 6 and Colossians 2.

Ah! Our next passage...

Again, your ambiguity in citing Scriptural passages to support your assertions speak volumes concerning the uncertainty that you obviously feel here. You cite a whole broad chapter - and when we read the entire chapter we cannot find anything that supports your assertion.

Just where in Colossians 2, does it state that "remission of sins" is obtained at baptism and not repentance? Nowhere!

The same statement is made by the same writer as in Romans 6:4 - we are buried with Christ in baptism. Yes! But we find no support for your assertion here. Paul is essentially making a similar case as he made in Romans 6:1-12. Thus, I can simply apply the same statements as I made in the previous post.

The only thing that is even said to have been "erased" or "washed" or even uses that sort of terminology is found in Colossians 2:14:

"Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross."

Once again, back to the cross! The Gospel. The power of God unto salvation.

[pelathais]

And finally, Acts 22:16.

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

The "washing" is activated by the "calling on the name of the Lord." This is the same theology as 1 Peter 3:21, where Peter tells us that we are NOT saved by the action of the water against our flesh. We are saved by the resurrection of Jesus Christ! (the "power of God" unto salvation).

Given your contributions here, TheLegalist, I am even more convinced of the reading in Acts 2:38, as being "because of the forgiveness of sins." The UPCI Articles of Faith must remain unchanged under the heading of "Repentance and Conversion" and all other statements in other documents should be readjusted back to their original wording to comply with the teachings of the Bible on this matter.