The Nicene Creed is not Christian

[StanJ]

What is your point?

made it already...just waiting for your proper reply.

 

[StanJ]

Oz,

Robersons opinion on that passage has be refuted by Scholars. Even Daniel Wallace who is a Calvinist has said Robertson's position on this is wrong. He's actually going against his own theology on this position. However the real evidence in my opinion against Robertson's interpretation is the historical evidence. Up until around the Reformation the church has always understood the necessity of baptism. If you read the early writers it's clear that they saw the necessity of baptism and if anyone understood Koine Greek with was them, they spoke it. I'm going to take the eyewitness accounts of hundreds over the word of a theologian 1800 years later. Plus we have Scripture that makes it clear that baptism is necessary. Even Luther who started the Reformation held to the necessity of baptism.

Haven't read anything to make me believe Wallace is, but it seems, based on some of his commentaries, that Moo is.

 

[zeke25]

Oz,

Thank you for your reply. Yes, I believe this, and other verses clearly teach that baptism is the moment in which God's grace of forgiveness, cleansing, receiving the Holy Spirit, etc. takes place. I will try to address the Greek as I see in in response to what you have written:

First, the shift from plural to singular is irrelevant in my opinion. The real focus is the command to the crowd to repent along with the passive verb indicating that each individual should "be baptized." The clear indication here is that the required response included the command to repent and submit oneself to baptism. These verb forms do nothing to change the meaning of eis or the context in which it is used.

Now, considering the word eis. As you know, the overwhelming sense of eis in the NT refers to motion toward something with the connotation of purpose or goal. It is true that eis can be used in the sense of "relation to" or "because of" but this is not common. In fact, in my cursory overview of the word, I would say that approximately 1300x out of the approximately 1600x the word is used it carries a causal meaning with reference to motion toward or the purpose of something (perhaps even more than this).

Thus, one would only use a less likely rendering of this word if the context demands it. However, not only do we not see the context demanding it, we see the context forcing us to see this word as causal. In the context, we see the audience asking, "What shall we do?" Clearly, they are concerned about this sin and guilt of crucifying the Christ and are want to know what they should do to rid themselves of this guilt. The audience is asking what they must do and Peter is explaining what they must do and why. They must repent and be baptized so that their sins can be forgiven and that they might receive the Holy Spirit.

In fact, the Greek clearly links both repentance and baptism in this structure with the conjunctive, kai. Repentance and baptism are linked here and to argue that eis is not causal, by necessity, means that one must see both repentance and baptism as the result of, and not for the purpose of forgiveness. Thus, repentance must be seen as totally unnecessary with this approach and something done only because one has already been forgiven rather than the appropriate response to receive forgiveness. Yet, this concept makes no sense theologically or contexutally. Clearly, Jesus did not call people to repent because they were already part of the Kingdom, nor is Peter commanding them to repent because they are already forgiven.

I think if a theologian is honest with himself/herself they must conclude that the only reason to interpret eis as "because of" is due to a predetermined theological view that refuses to see baptism as linked with forgiveness. It is overwhelmingly evident in the context that the audience is asking how to respond and Peter is both informing them and explaining the results of such a response. He is not telling them they have already been forgiven and repentance and baptism are good ideas but unrelated to forgiveness or the Holy Spirit. Such a reading simply turns the entire context on its head and makes the entire passage nonsensical and meaningless. There is simply no way the audience would hear these words and conclude that repentance and baptism were unnecessary.

Furthermore, we seen in about a dozen other passages in the New Testament this exact same correlation where baptism is not viewed as the result of transformation, but the point of transformation. Paul portrays baptism as the point in which one is crucified with Christ and the point at which one is clothed with Christ. Never is the indication given in his writing that baptism is merely the result of being clothed, cleansed or saved. This is a later theological development created by Zwingli that was unknown to the church in her 1500 year history prior to his life.

I think this scholars comments are on target and worth consideration:

Wormwood,

A fine sounding presentation. But let's talk about the real issue.

Neither repentance, nor baptism provides for the remission of sins.

The shed Blood of Christ Yahoshua is the only thing that can remit sins. Hebrews 9:22,26 KJV, “22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. 26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.”

This is the real point of contention with the Nicene Creed. Where is there mention of Christ’s shed Blood?

It is the same with some whole denominations that interpret the Bible in accordance with the gospel of man rather than the gospel of Christ. They do not understand the Blood.

The Blood is not an after-thought. Repentance does not come first, then later one gets washed in the Blood, and then later one gets washed again in water. This is putting the cart before the horse. It is His Blood that takes away your sin and the sins of the whole world. Without the Blood, your repentance would be an exercise in futility.

Romans 6:23 KJV, “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through [Yahoshua the] Christ our Lord.”

One is not going to be able to repent or get baptized nor do anything else under the sun to avoid the penalty of death. You are a goner. Christ provided His shed Blood as your only escape. After you recognize that, then you can repent. After you have repented, then you can, in obedience, submit to water baptism. But neither repentance nor water baptism can save you, without the Blood first being shed.



The Blood


1. Romans 6:23 KJV, "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through [Yahoshua the] Christ our Lord." God made the rules, not man. This is a quote from God’s word, the Bible. If you do not like this rule, then please take it up with God. You can choose not to believe in God and therefore you can disregard His words as unimportant. Or, you can choose to believe in God, but choose only to believe those words of His that you like, or that you believe He actually said. Personally, I cannot take any path that leads away from the truth. The truth is that God exists, and His words, all of His words, are true. Numbers 23:19 KJV, "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?" 2 Timothy 3:16 KJV, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."

2. If you need a reason to believe in God then read Romans 1:19-20 KJV, "19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse." In other words, all you have to do is look at the beauty and complexity of a flower, or look upward at the stars and contemplate the immenseness of space and the power of the stars and our sun, or study the complexities of an eye and you know in your heart that there must be an intelligent God. If you do not, then God says you are without excuse.

3. For the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23 in paragraph one above). To put this quote another way, it is saying that if a person chooses to sin, then the end result will be death, not life. If you believe in God, if you believe He does not lie, and if you believe the Bible is His word to mankind, and if you are interested in living forever and not dying, then an understanding of what sin is and how to avoid it suddenly becomes very important.

4. There are many examples of sin. Here are a few scriptures that one can use to get a fairly quick understanding of it. James 4:17 KJV, "Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin." 1 John 3:4 KJV, "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law." 1 John 5:17 KJV, "All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death."

5. How do we avoid sin? Psalm 53:3 KJV, "Every one of them is gone back: they are altogether become filthy; there is none that doeth good, no, not one." Proverbs 20:9 KJV, "Who can say, I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my sin?" Ecclesiastes 7:20 KJV, "For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not." Romans 3:23 KJV, "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." 1 John 1:8 KJV, "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." As you can see, God has said that there is no way to avoid sin. You might be thinking at this point that the rules are stacking up against you. If you sin, and you have and will again, then you must be punished with death, the shedding of your own blood. Is this fair?

6. God made the rules, this is not only fair, it is just. God wants everyone to see and understand the seriousness of sin. God hates sin. He wants you to live and not die. The natural consequences of sin is death. Since God cannot give you a free will and keep you from sinning at the same time, then He must have provided another way to save you from your sins. Hebrews 9:22 KJV, "And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission."

7. God has taught man, throughout the Bible, beginning with the sin of Adam and Eve, that innocent blood must be shed to atone for sin. Genesis 3:21 KJV, "Unto Adam also and to his wife did [Yahowah] God make coats of skins, and clothed them." A man cannot shed his own blood to atone for his own sin, or for the sin of another, because he is not innocent. He is already sinful. See paragraph five above. God taught us to sacrifice, to kill and shed the blood of innocent animals, to atone for our sins. Animals do not have the capacity to sin, they do not know the difference between good and evil. He always taught us to pick an animal without blemish or defect. A lamb was the epitome of an innocent animal that would allow itself to be slaughtered with no resistance. Can you imagine a lamb committing a sin? I cannot.

8. Why can we not continue to shed the blood of innocent animals to atone for our sins? Because the blood of animals was never sufficient for the covering or washing away of our sins. Hebrews 10:4-6 KJV, "4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. 5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: 6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure."

9. Why can we not sacrifice new born human babies to atone for our sins? Surely they are still innocent and have not yet sinned. No where in the Bible has God ever taught or condoned human sacrifice. In fact, he considers it a grievous sin. Constantly we are taught that it is Satan who teaches and uses human sacrifice. And of course, it accomplishes nothing in regards to salvation. Deuteronomy 18:10 KJV, "There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch." 2 Kings 17:17 KJV, "And they caused their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire, and used divination and enchantments, and sold themselves to do evil in the sight of [Yahowah], to provoke him to anger." Jeremiah 7:31 KJV, "And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart." Jeremiah 19:5 KJV, "They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind." Jeremiah 32:35 KJV, "And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin." Ezekiel 20:26 KJV, "And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am [Yahowah]."

10.a. Are we left with no where to go? We are going to sin, we are going to die, and there is no innocent blood made available to us that can be shed to take our sins away, except one place and one person. That place and person is the tree on which Yahoshua the Christ, the Son of the living God, and God Himself, was killed. Only His shed blood can wash away your sins. Hebrews 9:11-14 KJV, "11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; 12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. 13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: 14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?" Revelation 5:9-10 KJV, "9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation. 10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth."

10.b. 1 Peter 1:18-19 KJV, "18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; 19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot." 1 Peter 2:24 KJV, "Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed." 1 Peter 3:18 KJV, "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit." When speaking of Yahoshua the Christ, Peter said in Acts 4:12 KJV, "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved."

11. It is only by the shed Blood of Christ that we can be saved from our sins. There is no other way. Christ died to atone for our sins because he loves us. John 3:16 KJV, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." This atonement was given to us as grace. Grace is an unmerited gift. We did nothing to earn Christ’s sacrifice for us. He chose to do it for us even though we were sinners. Romans 5:8 KJV, "But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." And we must have faith in Christ that His sacrifice will atone for our sins. Hebrews 11:6 KJV, "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." John 6:29 KJV, "[Yahoshua] answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent." Ephesians 2:8-9 KJV, "8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast."

12. We welcome constructive input supported by Scriptures from the Bible. Please contact us by our email address [email protected]. Copyright ©2005, updated © 2010 Richard Douglas Mauck and/or Sandra Faye Mauck.


zeke25

 

[ewq1938]

Neither repentance, nor baptism provides for the remission of sins.

The shed Blood of Christ Yahoshua is the only thing that can remit sins. Hebrews 9:22,26 KJV, “22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. 26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.”

Christ's blood is NOT the only thing that can forgive/remove sin. Christ forgave sins before he ever shed his blood plus charity and converting someone to Christ also forgive sin.

 

[StanJ]

Christ's blood is NOT the only thing that can forgive/remove sin. Christ forgave sins before he ever shed his blood plus charity and converting someone to Christ also forgive sin.

Actually it is the belief or acceptance of the Messiah that produces forgiveness. The blood provides reconciliation and redemption for ALL men.
Abraham was forgiven and saved because of His acceptance of the Messianic provision that God had promised.
Again Romans 10:5-13 is clear in this regard.

5 Moses writes this about the righteousness that is by the law: “The person who does these things will live by them.” 6 But the righteousness that is by faith says: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down) 7 “or ‘Who will descend into the deep?’” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8 But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,” that is, the message concerning faith that we proclaim: 9 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. 11 As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.” 12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

 

[OzSpen]

Oz,

Thank you for your reply. Yes, I believe this, and other verses clearly teach that baptism is the moment in which God's grace of forgiveness, cleansing, receiving the Holy Spirit, etc. takes place. I will try to address the Greek as I see in in response to what you have written:

First, the shift from plural to singular is irrelevant in my opinion. The real focus is the command to the crowd to repent along with the passive verb indicating that each individual should "be baptized." The clear indication here is that the required response included the command to repent and submit oneself to baptism. These verb forms do nothing to change the meaning of eis or the context in which it is used.

Now, considering the word eis. As you know, the overwhelming sense of eis in the NT refers to motion toward something with the connotation of purpose or goal. It is true that eis can be used in the sense of "relation to" or "because of" but this is not common. In fact, in my cursory overview of the word, I would say that approximately 1300x out of the approximately 1600x the word is used it carries a causal meaning with reference to motion toward or the purpose of something (perhaps even more than this).

Thus, one would only use a less likely rendering of this word if the context demands it. However, not only do we not see the context demanding it, we see the context forcing us to see this word as causal. In the context, we see the audience asking, "What shall we do?" Clearly, they are concerned about this sin and guilt of crucifying the Christ and are want to know what they should do to rid themselves of this guilt. The audience is asking what they must do and Peter is explaining what they must do and why. They must repent and be baptized so that their sins can be forgiven and that they might receive the Holy Spirit.

In fact, the Greek clearly links both repentance and baptism in this structure with the conjunctive, kai. Repentance and baptism are linked here and to argue that eis is not causal, by necessity, means that one must see both repentance and baptism as the result of, and not for the purpose of forgiveness. Thus, repentance must be seen as totally unnecessary with this approach and something done only because one has already been forgiven rather than the appropriate response to receive forgiveness. Yet, this concept makes no sense theologically or contexutally. Clearly, Jesus did not call people to repent because they were already part of the Kingdom, nor is Peter commanding them to repent because they are already forgiven.

I think if a theologian is honest with himself/herself they must conclude that the only reason to interpret eis as "because of" is due to a predetermined theological view that refuses to see baptism as linked with forgiveness. It is overwhelmingly evident in the context that the audience is asking how to respond and Peter is both informing them and explaining the results of such a response. He is not telling them they have already been forgiven and repentance and baptism are good ideas but unrelated to forgiveness or the Holy Spirit. Such a reading simply turns the entire context on its head and makes the entire passage nonsensical and meaningless. There is simply no way the audience would hear these words and conclude that repentance and baptism were unnecessary.

Furthermore, we seen in about a dozen other passages in the New Testament this exact same correlation where baptism is not viewed as the result of transformation, but the point of transformation. Paul portrays baptism as the point in which one is crucified with Christ and the point at which one is clothed with Christ. Never is the indication given in his writing that baptism is merely the result of being clothed, cleansed or saved. This is a later theological development created by Zwingli that was unknown to the church in her 1500 year history prior to his life.

I think this scholars comments are on target and worth consideration:

Wormwood,

If you read the quote I gave to you re Acts 2:38 from an excellent Greek exegete, Dr A T Robertson (a Baptist), he said that the controversial translation of 'unto the remission of your sins' will be interpreted as follows, 'One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not'. Your response has demonstrated this.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Oz,

Robersons opinion on that passage has be refuted by Scholars. Even Daniel Wallace who is a Calvinist has said Robertson's position on this is wrong. He's actually going against his own theology on this position. However the real evidence in my opinion against Robertson's interpretation is the historical evidence. Up until around the Reformation the church has always understood the necessity of baptism. If you read the early writers it's clear that they saw the necessity of baptism and if anyone understood Koine Greek with was them, they spoke it. I'm going to take the eyewitness accounts of hundreds over the word of a theologian 1800 years later. Plus we have Scripture that makes it clear that baptism is necessary. Even Luther who started the Reformation held to the necessity of baptism.

Butch,

I've grown tired of your assertions without references to what you say. Here you do the same again. I will not be responding when you don't defend your position with evidence. Daniel Wallace's opposition to Robertson is useless when you present not a word of what Wallace says and where he said it.

 

[OzSpen]

First, the shift from plural to singular is irrelevant in my opinion. The real focus is the command to the crowd to repent along with the passive verb indicating that each individual should "be baptized." The clear indication here is that the required response included the command to repent and submit oneself to baptism. These verb forms do nothing to change the meaning of eis or the context in which it is used.

You reject the relevance of the shift from plural to singular but only gave your opinion and not evidence.

You state that the command is to the crowd 'to repent along with the passive verb to 'be baptized'. It's important to note that the command to repent is an aorist active imperative (command). Why would you think that the passive voice 'be baptized' was the 'real focus'. Being passive voice means that it happened to them and not that they actioned it by active voice.

 

[Joyful]

made it already...just waiting for your proper reply.

Christianity is all about following Jesus' teachings. I don't get distracted by anyone else's' word or teachings because too many are using them to distract what Jesus teaches.

Jesus taught us perfectly how to love God and one another, simply and clearly in overall.

You don't seem to think Jesus taught us good enough.

 

[Wormwood]

Oz,

As you know, the Greek language, like English, is not a mystery. If I say, "All of you repent and each one of you should be baptized for the remission of your sins" the switch from plural to singular has no impact on which of these terms holds more significance in their connection with "remission of sins" or the impact on how eis is understood. I can quote a dozen Greek scholars that would say the same thing. Most commentaries don't even mention this because there is nothing to mention. Would you like me to quote some scholars and commentaries on this issue?

I didn't say that the passive term "be baptized" is the real focus. I simply am saying that the switch from plural to singular has to do more with the command for the group to repent and the call for each individual to submit to baptism. That is the reason for the shift, not because one term holds more weight or because it somehow grammatically impacts how we interpret eis.

If you read the quote I gave to you re Acts 2:38 from an excellent Greek exegete, Dr A T Robertson (a Baptist), he said that the controversial translation of 'unto the remission of your sins' will be interpreted as follows, 'One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not'. Your response has demonstrated this.

What I find compelling is a host of scholars that do not feel baptism is linked to the remission of sins will concede that this is the most likely interpretation.

A fine sounding presentation. But let's talk about the real issue.

Neither repentance, nor baptism provides for the remission of sins.
The shed Blood of Christ Yahoshua is the only thing that can remit sins.

Zeke,
Nowhere have I ever indicated that water baptism substitutes for the blood of Jesus. This reflects more of your own biases than my understanding of baptism. Of course no one can be forgiven without the blood of Jesus. That is not in dispute.

 

[Butch5]

Butch,

I've grown tired of your assertions without references to what you say. Here you do the same again. I will not be responding when you don't defend your position with evidence. Daniel Wallace's opposition to Robertson is useless when you present not a word of what Wallace says and where he said it.

Seriously Oz? I'd think since you studied this you'd be familiar with what I was saying. As you read take notice how JR Mantley let his theology determine his interpretation.This is what I've been trying to get across to you in the other thread and why I don't just accept what these guys say.

B. Significant Passages Involving Εἰς
1. Causal Εἰς in Acts 2:38?
An interesting discussion over the force of εἰς took place several years ago, especially in relation to Acts 2:38. The text reads as follows: Πέτρος δὲ πρὸς αὐτοὺς μετανοήσατε, φησίν, καὶ βαπτισθήτω ἕκαστος ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι ᾽Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ὑμῶν. . . (“And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized—each one of you—at the name of Jesus Christ because of/for/unto the forgiveness of your sins. . .”).
370
On the one hand, J. R. Mantey argued that εἰς could be used causally in various passages in the NT, among them Matt 3:11 and Acts 2:38. It seems that Mantey believed that a salvation by grace would be violated if a causal εἰς was not evi­dent in such passages as Acts 2:38.39
On the other hand, Ralph Marcus questioned Mantey’s nonbiblical examples of a causal εἰς so that in his second of two rejoinders he concluded (after a blow-by-blow refutation):
It is quite possible that εἰς is used causally in these NT passages but the examples of causal εἰς cited from non-biblical Greek contribute absolutely nothing to making this possibility a probability. If, therefore, Professor Mantey is right in his interpre­tation of various NT passages on baptism and repentance and the remission of sins, he is right for reasons that are non-linguistic.40
Marcus ably demonstrated that the linguistic evidence for a causal εἰς fell short of proof.
If a causal εἰς is not in view, what are we to make of Acts 2:38? There are at least four other interpretations of Acts 2:38.
1) The baptism referred to here is physical only, and εἰς has the meaning of for or unto. Such a view, if this is all there is to it, suggests that salvation is based on works. The basic problem of this view is that it runs squarely in the face of the theology of Acts, namely: (a) repentance precedes baptism (cf. Acts 3:19; 26:20), and ( B) salvation is entirely a gift of God, not pro­cured via water baptism (Acts 10:43 [cf. v 47]; 13:38-39, 48; 15:11; 16:30-31; 20:21; 26:18).
2) The baptism referred to here is spiritual only. Although such a view fits well with the theology of Acts, it does not fit well with the obvious meaning of “baptism” in Acts—especially in this text (cf. 2:41).
3) The text should be repunctuated in light of the shift from second person plu­ral to third person singular back to second person plural again. If so, it would read as follows: “Repent, and let each one of you be baptized at the name of Jesus Christ, for the forgiveness of your sins. . . .” If this is the cor­rect understanding, then εἰς is subordinate to μετανοήσατε alone, rather than to βαπτισθήτω. The idea then would be, “Repent for/with reference to your sins, and let each one of you be baptized. . . .” Such a view is an acceptable way of handling εἰς, but its subtlety and awkwardness are against it.
4) Finally, it is possible that to a first-century Jewish audience (as well as to Peter), the idea of baptism might incorporate both the spiritual reality
371
and the physical symbol. In other words, when one spoke of baptism, he usually meant both ideas—the reality and the ritual. Peter is shown to make the strong connection between these two in chapters 10 and 11. In 11:15-16 he recounts the conversion of Cornelius and friends, pointing out that at the point of their conversion they were baptized by the Holy Spirit. After he had seen this, he declared, “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit. . .” (10:47). The point seems to be that if they have had the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit via spir­itual baptism, there ought to be a public testimony/acknowledgment via water baptism as well. This may not only explain Acts 2:38 (viz., that Peter spoke of both reality and picture, though only the reality removes sins), but also why the NT speaks of only baptized believers (as far as we can tell): Water baptism is not a cause of salvation, but a picture; and as such it serves both as a public acknowledgment (by those present) and a public confes­sion (by the convert) that one has been Spirit-baptized.
In sum, although Mantey’s instincts were surely correct that in Luke’s theology baptism was not the cause of salvation, his ingenious solution of a causal εἰς lacks conviction. There are other ways for us to satisfy the tension, but adjusting the grammar to answer a backward-looking “Why?” has no more basis than the notion that ἀντί ever meant mere representation (see prior discussion).

Works Consulted,

Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics by Daniel B. Wallace pages 370-371

 

[StanJ]

Christianity is all about following Jesus' teachings. I don't get distracted by anyone else's' word or teachings because too many are using them to distract what Jesus teaches.

Jesus taught us perfectly how to love God and one another, simply and clearly in overall.

You don't seem to think Jesus taught us good enough.

So let me get this straight...you only listen to Jesus' words? You only obey the words in red?
How would you know what I THINK, when you don't answer my questions properly, in order for me to reply properly?

 

[Joyful]

So let me get this straight...you only listen to Jesus' words? You only obey the words in red?
How would you know what I THINK, when you don't answer my questions properly, in order for me to reply properly?

It is non of anyone's business how I learn how to love God and one another.

You should be concerned of your own salvation how you get it.

As for me, I trust Jesus that He taught us how to inherit Gods' kingdom.

Now let me ask you a question. Are Jesus' teachings not good enough for you to learn how to get eternal life?

 

[OzSpen]

You wrote:

But let's talk about the real issue.

Neither repentance, nor baptism provides for the remission of sins.

The shed Blood of Christ Yahoshua is the only thing that can remit sins. Hebrews 9:22,26 KJV,

I think you could be missing something important here.

We know this from 2 Cor 7:9-10 (ESV), 'As it is, I rejoice, not because you were grieved, but because you were grieved into repenting. For you felt a godly grief, so that you suffered no loss through us.10 For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation without regret, whereas worldly grief produces death'.

John 3:16 (ESV) is clear, 'Whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life'.

This leads Wayne Grudem (1999:309, 310) to define the need for repentance and faith for salvation: 'Repentance is a heartfelt sorrow for sin, a renouncing of it, and a sincere commitment to forsake it and walk in obedience to Christ.... Scripture puts repentance and faith together as different aspects of the one act of coming to Christ for salvation.... Neither repentance nor faith comes first; they must come together. John Murray speaks of "penitent faith" and "believing repentance"' (emphasis in original).

Grudem's summary diagram is that Repentance + Faith --> Conversion (figure 21.1, Grudem 1999:211).

Oz

Works consulted
Grudem, W 1999. Bible Doctrine: Essential teachings of the Christian faith. J Purswell (ed). Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press (published by special arrangement with Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan ).

 

[zeke25]

Oz,

As you know, the Greek language, like English, is not a mystery. If I say, "All of you repent and each one of you should be baptized for the remission of your sins" the switch from plural to singular has no impact on which of these terms holds more significance in their connection with "remission of sins" or the impact on how eis is understood. I can quote a dozen Greek scholars that would say the same thing. Most commentaries don't even mention this because there is nothing to mention. Would you like me to quote some scholars and commentaries on this issue?

I didn't say that the passive term "be baptized" is the real focus. I simply am saying that the switch from plural to singular has to do more with the command for the group to repent and the call for each individual to submit to baptism. That is the reason for the shift, not because one term holds more weight or because it somehow grammatically impacts how we interpret eis.


What I find compelling is a host of scholars that do not feel baptism is linked to the remission of sins will concede that this is the most likely interpretation.


Zeke,
Nowhere have I ever indicated that water baptism substitutes for the blood of Jesus. This reflects more of your own biases than my understanding of baptism. Of course no one can be forgiven without the blood of Jesus. That is not in dispute.

Wormwood,

If that is your position, then what value is the Nicene Creed? It leads many astray. Not only that, but there have been at least two other responses to my post, and they do not agree that Christ's Blood is of primary importance. So how has the NC helped them?

zeke25

 

[zeke25]

You wrote:

I think you could be missing something important here.

We know this from 2 Cor 7:9-10 (ESV), 'As it is, I rejoice, not because you were grieved, but because you were grieved into repenting. For you felt a godly grief, so that you suffered no loss through us.10 For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation without regret, whereas worldly grief produces death'.

John 3:16 (ESV) is clear, 'Whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life'.

This leads Wayne Grudem (1999:309, 310) to define the need for repentance and faith for salvation: 'Repentance is a heartfelt sorrow for sin, a renouncing of it, and a sincere commitment to forsake it and walk in obedience to Christ.... Scripture puts repentance and faith together as different aspects of the one act of coming to Christ for salvation.... Neither repentance nor faith comes first; they must come together. John Murray speaks of "penitent faith" and "believing repentance"' (emphasis in original).

Grudem's summary diagram is that Repentance + Faith --> Conversion (figure 21.1, Grudem 1999:211).

Oz

Works consulted
Grudem, W 1999. Bible Doctrine: Essential teachings of the Christian faith. J Purswell (ed). Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press (published by special arrangement with Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan ).

OzSpen,

God always wants man to participate, be an active participant, in what He is doing. First, He accomplished that which we were unable to do - He provided the innocent Blood sacrifice for our sins. Our response, predicated on our understanding and acceptance of this sacrifice, is to repent of our sins and consider those sins to be "under the Blood" or washed away by the Blood. So, all verses that speak of repentance leading to salvation are true, but only if the Blood has been applied first.

For example, a man rejects Christ's sacrifice and considers it ridiculous. But he believes in God and His Son. Then he repents of his sins and calls upon the Name of God asking that his sins be forgiven him. He even leads a good life afterwards for all to see. Has this man's sins been forgiven? No, not at all. These are such that try to enter into the sheep pen without going through the gate.

Christ forgave sins when He walked the earth as a man. King David's sins were forgiven. Abraham's sins were forgiven. But these were not saved until Christ's Blood sacrifice was applied. That didn't happen until He was crucified at Calvary. Where do you suppose He went for those 3 days and 3 nights? He emptied out Abraham's bosom, He led out the captives.

zeke25

 

[OzSpen]

Seriously Oz? I'd think since you studied this you'd be familiar with what I was saying. As you read take notice how JR Mantley let his theology determine his interpretation.This is what I've been trying to get across to you in the other thread and why I don't just accept what these guys say.

B. Significant Passages Involving Εἰς
1. Causal Εἰς in Acts 2:38?
An interesting discussion over the force of εἰς took place several years ago, especially in relation to Acts 2:38. The text reads as follows: Πέτρος δὲ πρὸς αὐτοὺς μετανοήσατε, φησίν, καὶ βαπτισθήτω ἕκαστος ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι ᾽Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ὑμῶν. . . (“And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized—each one of you—at the name of Jesus Christ because of/for/unto the forgiveness of your sins. . .”).
370
On the one hand, J. R. Mantey argued that εἰς could be used causally in various passages in the NT, among them Matt 3:11 and Acts 2:38. It seems that Mantey believed that a salvation by grace would be violated if a causal εἰς was not evi­dent in such passages as Acts 2:38.39
On the other hand, Ralph Marcus questioned Mantey’s nonbiblical examples of a causal εἰς so that in his second of two rejoinders he concluded (after a blow-by-blow refutation):
It is quite possible that εἰς is used causally in these NT passages but the examples of causal εἰς cited from non-biblical Greek contribute absolutely nothing to making this possibility a probability. If, therefore, Professor Mantey is right in his interpre­tation of various NT passages on baptism and repentance and the remission of sins, he is right for reasons that are non-linguistic.40
Marcus ably demonstrated that the linguistic evidence for a causal εἰς fell short of proof.
If a causal εἰς is not in view, what are we to make of Acts 2:38? There are at least four other interpretations of Acts 2:38.
1) The baptism referred to here is physical only, and εἰς has the meaning of for or unto. Such a view, if this is all there is to it, suggests that salvation is based on works. The basic problem of this view is that it runs squarely in the face of the theology of Acts, namely: (a) repentance precedes baptism (cf. Acts 3:19; 26:20), and ( B) salvation is entirely a gift of God, not pro­cured via water baptism (Acts 10:43 [cf. v 47]; 13:38-39, 48; 15:11; 16:30-31; 20:21; 26:18).
2) The baptism referred to here is spiritual only. Although such a view fits well with the theology of Acts, it does not fit well with the obvious meaning of “baptism” in Acts—especially in this text (cf. 2:41).
3) The text should be repunctuated in light of the shift from second person plu­ral to third person singular back to second person plural again. If so, it would read as follows: “Repent, and let each one of you be baptized at the name of Jesus Christ, for the forgiveness of your sins. . . .” If this is the cor­rect understanding, then εἰς is subordinate to μετανοήσατε alone, rather than to βαπτισθήτω. The idea then would be, “Repent for/with reference to your sins, and let each one of you be baptized. . . .” Such a view is an acceptable way of handling εἰς, but its subtlety and awkwardness are against it.
4) Finally, it is possible that to a first-century Jewish audience (as well as to Peter), the idea of baptism might incorporate both the spiritual reality
371
and the physical symbol. In other words, when one spoke of baptism, he usually meant both ideas—the reality and the ritual. Peter is shown to make the strong connection between these two in chapters 10 and 11. In 11:15-16 he recounts the conversion of Cornelius and friends, pointing out that at the point of their conversion they were baptized by the Holy Spirit. After he had seen this, he declared, “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit. . .” (10:47). The point seems to be that if they have had the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit via spir­itual baptism, there ought to be a public testimony/acknowledgment via water baptism as well. This may not only explain Acts 2:38 (viz., that Peter spoke of both reality and picture, though only the reality removes sins), but also why the NT speaks of only baptized believers (as far as we can tell): Water baptism is not a cause of salvation, but a picture; and as such it serves both as a public acknowledgment (by those present) and a public confes­sion (by the convert) that one has been Spirit-baptized.
In sum, although Mantey’s instincts were surely correct that in Luke’s theology baptism was not the cause of salvation, his ingenious solution of a causal εἰς lacks conviction. There are other ways for us to satisfy the tension, but adjusting the grammar to answer a backward-looking “Why?” has no more basis than the notion that ἀντί ever meant mere representation (see prior discussion).

Works Consulted,

Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics by Daniel B. Wallace pages 370-371

This is a red herring fallacy.

 

[OzSpen]

OzSpen,

God always wants man to participate, be an active participant, in what He is doing. First, He accomplished that which we were unable to do - He provided the innocent Blood sacrifice for our sins. Our response, predicated on our understanding and acceptance of this sacrifice, is to repent of our sins and consider those sins to be "under the Blood" or washed away by the Blood. So, all verses that speak of repentance leading to salvation are true, but only if the Blood has been applied first.

For example, a man rejects Christ's sacrifice and considers it ridiculous. But he believes in God and His Son. Then he repents of his sins and calls upon the Name of God asking that his sins be forgiven him. He even leads a good life afterwards for all to see. Has this man's sins been forgiven? No, not at all. These are such that try to enter into the sheep pen without going through the gate.

Christ forgave sins when He walked the earth as a man. King David's sins were forgiven. Abraham's sins were forgiven. But these were not saved until Christ's Blood sacrifice was applied. That didn't happen until He was crucified at Calvary. Where do you suppose He went for those 3 days and 3 nights? He emptied out Abraham's bosom, He led out the captives.

zeke25

I hope you mean 'participate' by repentance and faith in Christ's substitutionary sacrifice when the Gospel is proclaimed (e.g. Acts 10:39-34 ESV; Rom 10:9-10 ESV). However, Calvinists would not agree with such a statement as you are either in or out according to the unconditional election of God for them. I'm not of that view.

Oz

 

[zeke25]

I hope you mean 'participate' by repentance and faith in Christ's substitutionary sacrifice when the Gospel is proclaimed (e.g. Acts 10:39-34 ESV; Rom 10:9-10 ESV). However, Calvinists would not agree with such a statement as you are either in or out according to the unconditional election of God for them. I'm not of that view.

Oz

Oz,

Yes, that's exactly what I mean. No, I do not subscribe to the Reformed view on soteriology.

zeke25

 

[Wormwood]

Wormwood,

If that is your position, then what value is the Nicene Creed? It leads many astray. Not only that, but there have been at least two other responses to my post, and they do not agree that Christ's Blood is of primary importance. So how has the NC helped them?

zeke25

Zeke,

I think you are misunderstanding the position of the church for her first 1500 years of existence. Clearly, all forgiveness comes by the blood of Jesus. However, Jesus' death on the cross didn't automatically save the entire world, correct? I assume you are not a universalist. So how are we to accept and embrace Christ's work for us on the cross that provides forgiveness of sin and eternal life? Belief? Yes, but James tells us "even the demons believe, and shudder." The "faith only" approach is very myopic. Why didnt Jesus tell the rich young ruler, "Just believe in me and you will have eternal life"? God desires a response. Biblically, we see God desiring people to respond to the sacrifice of Jesus through faith, repentance, confessing Christ as Lord and baptism. It is very wrong-headed in my opinion to try to divorce one from the others as if we can decide for ourselves what is significant regardless of what the Scriptures teach.

The early church understood that God called people to a response when they confronted the Gospel. Accepting the blood of Christ included things like repentance, faith, and baptism. We must not say, "one only needs baptism, they dont need faith or the blood." Nor can we say, "One only needs the blood and faith, we dont need to repent and be baptized." Jesus commanded his followers make disciples by baptizing them. This act is not a "work" by which one seeks to merit salvation or else Jesus is undermining his own work on the cross by giving the disciples this command!

I simply contend that we allow the Scripture to be the authority on this matter and not our preconcieved notions of "works" vs "faith." Jesus commanded his disciples to baptize as part of the disciple-making process. So who are we to say baptism isnt important and it has no real value? Especially when we find texts that explicitly teach the opposite!

Perhaps an illustration would be helpful: Imagine a couple is getting married. They both walk down the isle. They both take their oaths to honor and cherish one another in sickness and health. They exchange rings. They say "I do." They are pronounced husband and wife and then they kiss. Your argument (from my perception and that of the early church) is akin to saying, "Which part of this ceremony is insignificant? Can we throw out the rings? Do they have to take an oath? Do they have to say "I do"? Can we forgo the pronouncement and kiss? I mean, after all, we dont want to confuse the ceremony with love! Love is the important thing you know!"

Of course love is the important thing. But the rings, oaths, pronouncement, etc all express that love in a unique way that binds the two together in marriage. So it is with faith, repentance, baptism and confessing Christ. Of course the blood of Jesus is what heals us. Without the blood, none of the rest matters. That doesnt mean faith, repentance, or baptism are insignificant. God has promised that when we believe, repent and are baptized as we confess Christ that he will forgive us, heal us, raise us to live a new life, clothe us with Christ and give us the Holy Spirit. So who are we to say, "Ah, I dont think baptism matters. I dont think repentance matters." Let us allow the Scriptures to guide our actions rather than developing theologies that undermine the Word of God and commands of Christ.

*As for the "value" of the Nicene Creed, I am not a big fan of creeds. However, I do think it reflects the insights of the early church and that those insights are based on a correct understanding of the Scriptures. As a result, I believe the statement has value.