UPC doctrinal contradiction

[TheLegalist]

Originally Posted by Sam

I agree that baptism is important in the NT. There are about 20 stories of conversions in the Book of Acts and several times it is mentioned that the new converts follow up their conversion with water baptism. Water baptism seems to be done immediately after conversion and a confession of faith where it is mentioned. [B]But, to build a doctrine saying that a person is not saved without water baptism, and that a person does not have sins washed away without water baptism, and that a person does not have sins forgiven without water baptism on Acts 2:38 seems a little extreme.

yeah.. that bible... it's extreme

yeah sam it's so important, yet in the end there is no spiritual realization to it by your view point. What a witness to others or confession? Still not a real spirtual realization in the life.

[TheLegalist]

Originally Posted by pelathais

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..."

The discussion wasn't about "eis" as I have pointed above and NO it can't go either way. The "eis" argument is very poor and weak and everyone pretty much admits it. The SA argument is not the "eis" argument and both are weak even per Faith Only type admit it. See quotes from prvious.

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.

Read previous...

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

His points where agreed with on his question BY A LETTER HE SENT. IF you would have went to the site you would have seen the letters he sent. I doubt you did that.

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?

I already explained my thought process in that statement.

[ManOfWord]

The problem, as I see it, is still a proof-texting of a particular paradigm. I've been through the whole "eis" vs "epi" etc. argument ad nauseum. From my perspective, it comes down to the true nature of God. A god who means what He says and says what He means. A god whose nature is clearly described in the scriptures.

The God I read about in the scriptures has gone to lengths w/o measure, in human terms, to remove the wedge of sin which separates His creation from Him. The "measure" I speak of was the death on the cross AND the resurrection from the dead. It wasn't the "cross", per se, and it wasn't the "name" per se, which purchased our salvation. It was His life which He laid down and gave as a substitute for ours. The cross certainly has great significance as does the name, but in and of themselves, they are not causal to salvation.

What is causal, is the price He paid. There is absolutely NO WAY I can reconcile that God to one who would reject and condemn to an eternal punishment one who had completely surrendered their life to Him, been baptized in water (not Jesus' name) and who may or may not have spoken in tongues, simply on the grounds of a technicality.'' The name is important, but the name doesn't remit. It identifies. I believe that name IS above all names and is to be revered AND that we should baptize in that lovely name!

That is really what we're talking about here, which I see as the real doctrinal contradiction. I DO believe in holy living and forsaking sin. I do NOT believe in a god who would basically say to an individual, "You know what, I am really pleased that you surrendered your life to Me. It is great that you forsook sin and began following my word to the best of your ability. It was great to see you baptized in water and I rejoiced at your receiving My Spirit as you spoke in a heavenly language. But, I've got to tell you and it really pains Me to say this, but I'm afraid you didn't get baptized in the correct way. You see, the baptizer didn't say the right thing and although you were instrumental in seeing many brought into the Kingdom, due to the fact that My name, Jesus, wasn't pronounced over you when you were immersed, I'm afraid that I must inform you that you will suffer eternally for that. I'm sorry, but that is just the way it is. It's not that I don't love you. I really do and my sacrifice on the cross proves it, but you just blew it when it came to the baptism thing. Depart from Me....."


Sorry, I just can't buy into that version of the Almighty.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by ManOfWord

The problem, as I see it, is still a proof-texting of a particular paradigm. I've been through the whole "eis" vs "epi" etc. argument ad nauseum. From my perspective, it comes down to the true nature of God. A god who means what He says and says what He means. A god whose nature is clearly described in the scriptures.

The God I read about in the scriptures has gone to lengths w/o measure, in human terms, to remove the wedge of sin which separates His creation from Him. The "measure" I speak of was the death on the cross AND the resurrection from the dead. It wasn't the "cross", per se, and it wasn't the "name" per se, which purchased our salvation. It was His life which He laid down and gave as a substitute for ours. The cross certainly has great significance as does the name, but in and of themselves, they are not causal to salvation.

What is causal, is the price He paid. There is absolutely NO WAY I can reconcile that God to one who would reject and condemn to an eternal punishment one who had completely surrendered their life to Him, been baptized in water (not Jesus' name) and who may or may not have spoken in tongues, simply on the grounds of a technicality.'' The name is important, but the name doesn't remit. It identifies. I believe that name IS above all names and is to be revered AND that we should baptize in that lovely name!

That is really what we're talking about here, which I see as the real doctrinal contradiction. I DO believe in holy living and forsaking sin. I do NOT believe in a god who would basically say to an individual, "You know what, I am really pleased that you surrendered your life to Me. It is great that you forsook sin and began following my word to the best of your ability. It was great to see you baptized in water and I rejoiced at your receiving My Spirit as you spoke in a heavenly language. But, I've got to tell you and it really pains Me to say this, but I'm afraid you didn't get baptized in the correct way. You see, the baptizer didn't say the right thing and although you were instrumental in seeing many brought into the Kingdom, due to the fact that My name, Jesus, wasn't pronounced over you when you were immersed, I'm afraid that I must inform you that you will suffer eternally for that. I'm sorry, but that is just the way it is. It's not that I don't love you. I really do and my sacrifice on the cross proves it, but you just blew it when it came to the baptism thing. Depart from Me....."


Sorry, I just can't buy into that version of the Almighty.

Well said MOW. Christ's death and resurrection are the focal points of Christianity and what Christ's death revealed was God's love for us. It revealed a crazy love, a mad love, a love that knew no bounds.

I've often asked why Christ must have endured such a horrible death. I've often asked why he even had to die. But, asking "why" is exactly the response God wanted. Christ's death is not supposed to make sense. In fact, it's supposed to make so little sense that the only conclusion left is that God is insane--insanely in love with us.

It is totally against the character of a God that is insanely in love with us to send us to hell for missing a few minor details.

[TheLegalist]

Originally Posted by pelathais

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

YEs as baptism is seen in relation to salvation which equates with the removal of enmity that sin brings.

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.

Total failure on your part. You have twisted this to totally something it's not as I have pointed out before. "Eis" and SA argument are two different things and I have just pointed out and scholars agree it's a poor argument on both. It's not either WAY. The quotes from Padfield and the responses to his letters are not about "eis" and it's definition. You are way out in left field creating whatever strawman position and argument and hitting it with another strawman when I am correcting your blurring of two totally different arguments and at that contradict each other as the SA argument is "pro" (for, in order to obtain, purpose of with reference to) LOL! It is an attempt to take the strength and overwhelming evidence of it's usage and apply it to repentance and break the connection of "kai" which is "and" (which creates a unit) from baptism. Which is NOT a normal reading. It's a play on words and as others have pointed out the structure and positioning actually give MORE direct affect toward baptism per historical usage and grammer than NEGATE IT!

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."

Well until you understand the distinction of the two arguments and the point Padfield was making it's pointless to go further.

Let's consider:

Romans 6
Colossians 2
Acts 22:16
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...

My point was to general overall usage not proving Acts 2:38... "Many" is within view of the whole, not a attempt to prove Acts 2:38 of which it has it's own clear meaning.

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?'"

why would Paul make a reference to something that had no realization or attached meaning? That's crazy. Paul is teaching on of what actually happens not simply a side note of type.

It's not about JUST our death in of itself but unification of our death with his. So your point is meaningless as you negate what is in view of baptism by your point.

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.

Correct as I have said before repentance has a object of turning to and that turning from all to him is seen by faith in being united with the one who saves us in his death IN BAPTISM. Thus our death/turning from what was to receive life through unification with Christ unto raising by the circumcision of Christ to newness of life IN BAPTISM cf Col 2.

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."

But yet we are sent/called to make discples and baptize Matt 28:19... His point is elliptical. It is wisdom... knowledge. That is not repentance. Repentance is something WE DO in response to said knowledge/gospel. Faith cometh by hearing. We are to preach truth FIRST... not simply baptize because without repentance.... proper response to the KNOWLEDGE baptism is noneffect and worthless.

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?

YEs... It PRODUCES ACTS 2:38 REPENTANCE AND BAPTISM as BOTH are responses and are SEEN AS HOW TO BE UNITED WITH THE OBJECT OF FAITH OF THE GOSPEL!

Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Context the FAITH/Gospel/knowledge/wisdom delivered is related to having put on that FAITH as in being clothed/ "put on" Christ in baptism.

"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."

YEs hearing produces REPENTANCE and it's turning destination is unification with the object of that FAITH that created it, JESUS. Notice it is the "power of GOD UNTO "EIS" (for the purpose of, in order to obtain, FOR) TO everyone that responds/beliefs. What is the context and result of belief.... Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved and Acts 2:38 Repent and be baptized "for". Knowledge gives power TO DO as you cannot do without knowledge.

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 notice not scripture here on that and I notice it's a only external aspect not a Spiritual reality in the life of the believes. Thus just like Sam it has no real power in your view.

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.


sorry had to delete some stuff ot make one post but my point is more toward what I left.

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.

You fail to realize as do people who ask about the thief on the cross and whether he was under the new covenant. Baptism is about RESURRECTION UNTO LIFE NOT JUST DEATH! You have a new creature BEFORE baptism when Paul says we ARISE TO NEWNESS IN BAPTISM. This totaly negates ANY argument you have on this. also the thief was under the old as the NC is about D,B,R not just death.

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).

How does he arise to newness in baptism if repentance is newness in your view and he is saved already. LOL! Talk about double speak.

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!

Seriously... it says BAPTISM DOTH NOW SAVE US! As it is a pledge/petition of good conscience before GOD just as I have stated before about Matt 5 and putting away your gift go and be reconciled THEN come and offer your gift in good conscience. We do this by faith in baptism to be united with Christ by true repentance. We see the power of God in baptism!

Col 2:11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ,
Col 2:12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.
Col 2:13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, (UNIFICATION AT BAPTISM) having forgiven us all our trespasses,

[TheLegalist]

N/M

[Scott Hutchinson]

Repentance,Water Baptism In Jesus Name,Holy Ghost seems to be a biblical pattern.But when one repents they ask The Lord to forgive them of their sins.The question remains does one receive forgiveness of sin at repentance,do they get forgiveness of sin,at baptism in Jesus Name ?

If one gets the Holy Ghost baptism prior to baptism in Jesus Name,does this mean God has invested Holy Power in the life of a person who has not been forgiven of sin ?

[TheLegalist]

Originally Posted by Scott Hutchinson

Repentance,Water Baptism In Jesus Name,Holy Ghost seems to be a biblical pattern.But when one repents they ask The Lord to forgive them of their sins.The question remains does one receive forgiveness of sin at repentance,do they get forgiveness of sin,at baptism in Jesus Name ?

When is that which is old cut away? Baptism per Col 2! Baptism is not just about forgiveness it is passing from that which you are to a newness of life.
Also the way you are using repentance is limited. Repentance is not just simply to ask/receive forgiveness of sins but a life direction of mind and heart to follow. As per my posts above "repentance" is by many seen and the greek gives strength to is of a emphasis of direction of which we are to go....."baptism."

post 145

"... In fact, there is evidence that a change in number in the verbs, as in Acts 2:38, strengthens the demand for baptism and in no way affects its natural relationship with the phrase "for the remission of sins.""

Not just GO REPENT and THEN GO GET BAPTIZED. But baptism is the emphasis of repentance or the turning. If we are "united" with Christ at baptism .... the point of Acts 2:38 would be.... repent(believe/turn unto)and (which the believing and turning would have a destination or direction of what we are turning to) be baptized(wash away which by uniting yourself with Christ) everyone of you(which would show emphasis of all to do having given direction) in the name of Jesus Christ(authority of that belief seen in the destination of which baptism is the appointed time of unification WITH. In also who we are turning to in which baptism is seen and whom we place hope) for the remission of sins(reason of hope in whom we believe and purpose of destination). Repentance has baptism as the place of our hope of God's promise. Which Col 2 shows the aspect of turning and the hope as well as v38 "for remission of sin"

Col 2:12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith (our hope)in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.(with in mind and hope we also will see)


Also repentance is alway looking toward something or is a defined directive. If one is unsaved the direction is TO Jesus and the D,B,R in which we seek to identify ourselves with him. If one is saved he is IN covenant with rights and promises. Thus he already has stature or standing. When we confess and turn from sin and "walk according to his will" he cleanses us from all sin BECAUSE we are already in covenant which is a looking back at the standing already received when one came into covenant. Thus we receive according to the promise we entered into by covenant at baptism in which we where made children of God.

If one gets the Holy Ghost baptism prior to baptism in Jesus Name,does this mean God has invested Holy Power in the life of a person who has not been forgiven of sin ?

and why can't he move on someone? When does one have to have the past removed to have God move upon you? One must not be at enmity of heart(present sin) at that moment for the Spirit to move. The heart is cleansed by faith/belief/turning in response. Which means enmity/resistance to or against God is removed in which you now are responsive to him not against. It's the present enmity that is the resistance not past sin for God to move on your life.

If a heart is willing he is able to move has nothing to do with removal of past sin or coming into covenant. All forgiveness was looking "to" the point of atonement anyway. When Jesus forgave sin it was in hope and reality of the future atonement and it's realization or why did we need a atoning sacrifice?

[Scott Hutchinson]

Alright I'm not a Greek expert or a Theological giant,is there any virtue in water to remit sins ? If baptism remit sins then would not that mean that every one sins,that would have to be baptized in order to get removal of that sin ?

Wait a minute if a person is not forgiven of sin,can they be baptized with the Holy Ghost ? Of course repentance has to do with a life change,so in other words a person cannot be forgiven of sins,until they are baptized in Jesus Name yes or not ?

I'm not trying to be arguemenative or trying to bait anyone I'm just asking honest questions ?

[TheLegalist]

Originally Posted by Scott Hutchinson

Alright I'm not a Greek expert or a Theological giant,is there any virtue in water to remit sins ? If baptism remit sins then would not that mean that every(TIME) one sins,that would have to be baptized in order to get removal of that sin ?

In the above I added "time". The answer is no and is answered in part inthe previous. Initial salvation is looking toward reality of standing unitedwith Christ. A covenant member has standing already in covenant and God has promised them certain things. Thus when a person who is in covenant sins Christ already has "contactual" status in his life "to do" IF we confess and turn to do his will. A Sinner is not in covenant yet by baptism does not have standing with God. Baptism is only needed once to enter covenant and obtain a certain aspect of standing. All asking of forgiveness and repenting is seen under the status of relationship one has already established by covenant IN baptism. In part to a covenant member...that whichis realized(cleansing us from sin by walking according to his will) is because of the response of "the now/present" to the contract/covenant one has already realized by God's promise in the past at baptism.

Wait a minute if a person is not forgiven of sin,can they be baptized with the Holy Ghost ?

The only thing that keeps God from moving on you is "present enmity" or "resistance" of heart. Our hearts are cleansed(change of view and reality to something) by faith(proper response). That is not about forgiveness of sins but the reality of what happens to us by hearing and being positive in response. The postive response is a cleansing/removal/washing of the enmity or negative response or mentality toward God.


One must be true and right of heart before one can offer his gift/himself unto God. This is the same principle seen in repentance unto baptism(unification with Christ)

Of course repentance has to do with a life change,so in other words a person cannot be forgiven of sins,until they are baptized in Jesus Name yes or not ?

The reality of seperation of a sinner from his past cannot be realized until he is baptized and he is brought forth into newness of life. Col 2 is very clear about how this works through FAITH in GOD's doing in baptism.

I'm not trying to be arguemenative or trying to bait anyone I'm just asking honest questions ?

I know and they are FAQ

One comes into covenant at baptism and has rights. We walk as he leads according to the stipulations of the covenant and he cleanses us from sin. sinner needs baptism to have his first experience of the blood/death of christ realized toward him. When he comes into covenant it's about walking as he walked. Should he sin... confess and turn and start walking again and he cleanses us and we live. Which in reality is no different than the OT concept. Eze 18