Huntley tonite: Acts 2:38 is the Only Gospel

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

My only other thought would be that "repentance" is an acknowledgment for our error and sin. It is a compunction of guilt and a reversal from sin in our lives.

It is much like in II Cor 7:10, Paul speaks to the Corinthian church, "For godly sorrow works repentance to salvation..." He is saying that their acknowledgment of sin was good in that it points them into the direction of being saved.

Having said that, I see in Romans 6:4, that we are buried with Jesus Christ by baptism into death and that like Christ, we will also be raised to walk into "newness of life".

Now, my question - If we are already saved by "repentance", why does Romans 6:4 say that baptism causes us to be raised to walk in "newness of life"?

That should have happened at repentance, according to your view, if we are being saved at repentance.

Couldn't put it any better than Bro. Goss has - - it's just the way I believe it.

This is from an article titled “The Blood Covenant” by Howard A. Goss which appeared in the June 1954 Pentecostal Herald, pages 6 and 10


... repentance brings the blood of Jesus to a sinner’s heart to wipe out and cleanse him from all sin, he should then be baptized in water as a confession of his faith in the atonement...

When a sinner fully repents and confesses before God, the blood of Jesus atones for his sins , and cleanses his heart from all sin, and when he is clean then only is he a fit subject for water baptism. After that comes the promise “…you shall receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost…” (Acts 2:38)

The blood and power of the Lord Jesus is the only source of regeneration or the New Birth. Water baptism alone has no power to remit sins, else we could baptize infants as do the Catholics. The Roman Catholic teaches regeneration by water baptism, but it is not according to the Word of God. A candidate for baptism in water should be baptized BECAUSE THE BLOOD has cleansed, remitted, forgiven his sins, and not in order to get them remitted, as WATER ALONE CANNOT WASH AWAY SINS. The old hymn goes:
What can wash away my sins,
Nothing but the Blood of Jesus.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

Couldn't put it any better than Bro. Goss has - - it's just the way I believe it.

This is from an article titled “The Blood Covenant” by Howard A. Goss which appeared in the June 1954 Pentecostal Herald, pages 6 and 10


... repentance brings the blood of Jesus to a sinner’s heart to wipe out and cleanse him from all sin, he should then be baptized in water as a confession of his faith in the atonement...

When a sinner fully repents and confesses before God, the blood of Jesus atones for his sins , and cleanses his heart from all sin, and when he is clean then only is he a fit subject for water baptism. After that comes the promise “…you shall receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost…” (Acts 2:38)

The blood and power of the Lord Jesus is the only source of regeneration or the New Birth. Water baptism alone has no power to remit sins, else we could baptize infants as do the Catholics. The Roman Catholic teaches regeneration by water baptism, but it is not according to the Word of God. A candidate for baptism in water should be baptized BECAUSE THE BLOOD has cleansed, remitted, forgiven his sins, and not in order to get them remitted, as WATER ALONE CANNOT WASH AWAY SINS. The old hymn goes:
What can wash away my sins,
Nothing but the Blood of Jesus.

I'd rather stick with the Word than a man's faulty hermeuntics.

Luke 13:3 "I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish."

1 Peter 3:21 "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us..."

Romans 8:9 "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his."

His coming, as a man, was in order to be the perfect sacrifice and to become our Kinsman Redeemer. It doesn't negate anything preached in Acts 2:38. It only reinforces it.

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I'd rather stick with the Word than a man's faulty hermeuntics.

Luke 13:3 "I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish." Check

1 Peter 3:21 "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us..." Check

Romans 8:9 "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." Check

His coming, as a man, was in order to be the perfect sacrifice and to become our Kinsman Redeemer. It doesn't negate anything preached in Acts 2:38. It only reinforces it.

All three scriptures completely solidify Goss' teaching.

The rest of I Peter 3:21 is a perfect scripture to use too:

1 Peter 3:21 (New International Version)
21and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge[a] of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

The blood and power of the Lord Jesus is the only source of regeneration or the New Birth. Water baptism alone has no power to remit sins, else we could baptize infants as do the Catholics. The Roman Catholic teaches regeneration by water baptism, but it is not according to the Word of God. A candidate for baptism in water should be baptized BECAUSE THE BLOOD has cleansed, remitted, forgiven his sins, and not in order to get them remitted, as WATER ALONE CANNOT WASH AWAY SINS. The old hymn goes:
What can wash away my sins,
Nothing but the Blood of Jesus.

And, BTW, this is kind of a dumb thing for him to say. As a former Catholic, the dumb part is that a baby is not at the age of accountability and that would be the issue more than the water being the issue. Just sayin'.

We are trying to compartmentalize everything when God created everything to work together and in harmony - the death, burial and ressurection. You can't be saved without repenting, being baptized or being filled with His Spirit. It's not that hard to figure out.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

All three scriptures completely solidify Goss' teaching.

The rest of I Peter 3:21 is a perfect scripture to use too:

1 Peter 3:21 (New International Version)
21and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge[a] of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

"saves you also".

It also means that you aren't saved at repentance and that would be my point.

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

And, BTW, this is kind of a dumb thing for him to say. As a former Catholic, the dumb part is that a baby is not at the age of accountability and that would be the issue more than the water being the issue. Just sayin'.

We are trying to compartmentalize everything when God created everything to work together and in harmony - the death, burial and ressurection. You can't be saved without repenting, being baptized or being filled with His Spirit. It's not that hard to figure out.

I think what he's saying is baptism is empty (like the Catholics who baptize infants) if you haven't repented - the step where your sins are remitted.

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

"saves you also".

It also means that you aren't saved at repentance and that would be my point.

Funny - - I don't see it that way - - also means too. How could baptism save you also/too - - if you aren't saved when you repent?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

I think what he's saying is baptism is empty (like the Catholics who baptize infants) if you haven't repented - the step where your sins are remitted.

Remit and remitted are only used in one passage - John 20:23. God is the only one that can forgive sins. Jesus is using this instruction to the Apostles for ministerial or doctrinal purpose.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

Funny - - I don't see it that way - - also means too. How could baptism save you also/too - - if you aren't saved when you reprent?

How are you saved when you repent if you aren't saved until you are also baptized? Is it because the Word is true - Repent AND be baptized for the remission of your sins?"

[DAII]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

Funny - - I don't see it that way - - also means too. How could baptism save you also/too - - if you aren't saved when you reprent?

What the baptismal regenerationist omits is ... the like figure whereunto baptism doth save ... a figure compared to the ark ...

Douay-Rheims Bible
Whereunto baptism being of the like form, now saveth you also: not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the examination of a good conscience towards God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The figure also does not put away filth from the flesh ... or wash sin (figuratively) according to the Preacher at Pentecost.

That preacher already said what effectuates the blotting or washing and when it happens .... at repentance:

19Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord,