Results 201 - 220 of 309
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Grace and Truth Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
201 | WHY? | Acts 2:38 | Grace and Truth | 50467 | ||
Our attention will be confined to his discussion of Acts 2:38. He begins by quoting the passage: Peter replied, Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Our friend then muses: “This verse is a tough one.” It’s not so “tough” — unless one already has his mind abused with the notion that baptism cannot be a condition in the plan of redemption. The gentleman continues: “It seems to say that baptism is a part of salvation.” It doesn’t “seem” to say it; it actually says it. He opines that this cannot be the case, though, for such a conclusion would contradict other scriptures. Our friend then seeks to employ a rather time-worn evasion in defense of his position — although his version of it may suggest that he really does not understand the nature of the original argument. Mr. Slick attempts to sever the connection between the verbs “repent” and “be baptized” (even though they are connected by the coordinate “and”) on the ground that the former term is plural in number, while the latter is singular.According to him the sense would seem to be: “Repent [plural] for the forgiveness of your [plural] sins, and [separate from the foregoing] each of you [singular] get baptized [as a now-saved person].” The gentleman appears to think that simply because there is a change in grammatical number, this somehow has disassociated baptism from repentance, and therefore distanced it from the phrase, “for the forgiveness of sins.” This is a debate quibble hoary with age. It was ineffectively employed by Ben N. Bogard in his discussion with N.B. Hardeman more than sixty years ago. The eloquent Hardeman demolished the argument! First of all, let us focus again on the motive behind this argument. Here is the difficulty for Mr. Slick and others of his theological persuasion. The two commands, “repent” and “be baptized,” are joined by the conjunction “and.” It follows that if repentance is essential to salvation, so also is baptism. On the other hand, if baptism may be dismissed, repentance may be as well. |
||||||
202 | WHY? | Acts 2:38 | Grace and Truth | 50470 | ||
Since protestants have already determined in their minds that baptism cannot be a requisite for salvation but that repentance is essential, this passage obviously “troubles” them. Their challenge, therefore, is this: How may one divorce the obligation to “repent” from the command “be baptized” in this passage? The above-stated grammatical contortion, based upon the differing verbal “numbers,” is their solution. However, the argument is futile. It is a fundamental form of grammatical construction that a group may be addressed with a general command; and then, as a matter of emphasis, a second injunction may be issued to each individual within the group — both commands being equally obligatory. Here is an example of this construction we hear frequently: “All who are departing for San Francisco, approach Gate 3; each of you must have his ticket available for the agent.” Let me follow up on this in a couple of ways. Several years ago I wrote a letter to F.W. Gingrich, co-translator, along with William Arndt, of the highly-respected Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957). This is the most authoritative Greek lexicon extant in the English language. The letter, dated February 12, 1968, inquired as follows: Dear Professor Gingrich: Is it grammatically possible that the phrase “for the remission of sins,” in Acts 2:38, expresses the force of both verbs, “repent ye” and “be baptized each one of you,” even though these verbs differ in both person and number? From Albright College, Reading, Pennsylvania (February 21, 1968), Gingrich replied: Yes. The difference between metanoesate [repent] and baptistheto [be baptized] is simply that in the first instance, the people are viewed together in the plural, while in the second the emphasis is on each individual. No credence can be given to the sort of argument made by Mr. Slick. But, as indicated above, some religionists — particularly our Baptist neighbors — have argued this position for years. In reality, though, they’ve been notoriously inconsistent. |
||||||
203 | WHY? | Acts 2:38 | Grace and Truth | 50473 | ||
I have before me at this moment a copy of the Church Manual Designed For The Use Of Baptist Churches, by J.M. Pendleton (Philadelphia: Judson Press, 1955). In a segment which addresses the “subjects” who are appropriate candidates for baptism, Pendleton was attempting to explain why baptism may not be administered in the case of infants. In a consideration of Acts 2:38, he wrote: The gospel was preached, the people were pierced to the heart, and cried out, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” Peter replied, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you.” No man will say that the command “Repent,” is applicable to infants, and it is certain the same persons [emp. added here] were called on to repent and be baptized (p. 84). Pendleton’s concession completely devastates the argument of his Baptist colleagues. But consider this additional statement from Mr. Slick, the director of the Christian Apologetics Research Ministry: Repentance is a mark of salvation because it is granted by God (2 Tim. 2:25) and is given to believers only. In this context, only the regenerated, repentant person is to be baptized. A couple of observations must be made regarding this statement: 1. Repentance is a “gift” from God only in the sense that the Lord grants man the opportunity to repent (cf. Acts 11:18). That the sinner has the obligation to personally do the repenting is evidenced by the fact that he is commanded to discharge the responsibility (Acts 2:38; 3:19). 2. There is no biblical evidence whatever that “regeneration” is effected at the point of repentance. That is Mr. Slick’s unwarranted assertion. In the text under consideration, “forgiveness of sins” follows both repentance and immersion; it does not precede either of these commands. The gentleman is simply wrong about this matter. Our friend’s desire to defend the integrity of the Scriptures in various areas of apologetics is commendable. However, his egregious perversion of the divine plan of salvation undermines an otherwise noble effort. We can only hope he will restudy his position on the plan of redemption. |
||||||
204 | WHY? | Acts 2:38 | Grace and Truth | 50475 | ||
Mr. Slick was used in the article, no refernce to you. | ||||||
205 | Luke 7:29-30? | Acts 2:38 | Grace and Truth | 50480 | ||
The point in Luke 7:29-30 is the rejection of the counsel of God. Matt 28:19 is the great commission and that's about saving the world with the gospel. John 3;3-5 is about a new life in Christ being born again, getting into Christ-baptized into him! | ||||||
206 | WHY? | Acts 2:38 | Grace and Truth | 50482 | ||
First of all, let us focus again on the motive behind this argument. Here is the difficulty for Mr. Slick and others of his theological persuasion. The two commands, “repent” and “be baptized,” are joined by the conjunction “and.” It follows that if repentance is essential to salvation, so also is baptism. On the other hand, if baptism may be dismissed, repentance may be as well. Since protestants have already determined in their minds that baptism cannot be a requisite for salvation but that repentance is essential, this passage obviously “troubles” them. Their challenge, therefore, is this: How may one divorce the obligation to “repent” from the command “be baptized” in this passage? The above-stated grammatical contortion, based upon the differing verbal “numbers,” is their solution. However, the argument is futile. It is a fundamental form of grammatical construction that a group may be addressed with a general command; and then, as a matter of emphasis, a second injunction may be issued to each individual within the group — both commands being equally obligatory. |
||||||
207 | What does God want us to do? | Acts 2:38 | Grace and Truth | 50493 | ||
Now you and I have taken the time to break all of this down, from a simple statement "repent and be baptized for the remission of sins". Do you think the people in the first centry had to go through this to understand the command? "Repent (plural) and be baptized (plural) for the forgiveness of your (plural) sins..." Luke did write the exact words in Acts 2:38. If someone pickup the bible for the first time and read Acts 2:38 and wanted to do just what it says without knowing the tense of the verse can they be saved? I believe they can! Remember God is the author not Luke! What does God want us to do? The text is talking to a goup of people so it would be plural and baptism is singular for each one, and forgiveness is for all. Listen to what you are saying! |
||||||
208 | Can God save us the way HE WANTS TOO? | Acts 2:38 | Grace and Truth | 50585 | ||
"I believed God, and it was credited to me as righteousness. That was shown forth in my baptism and my repentance, just as Abraham's belief was demonstrated in his obedience. But faith and obedient works, while always linked, must never be confused with one another". You bring up a good point here, when you said what God has done, (you the word "credited") and ("obedience") God will credit us before or after we obey him? This is exactly what Paul is teaching about faith! Faith itself is an active verb, it demands a responce, in Gen 12 when God told Abram to Go! Did he just sit there saying I believe you God, or did he pack-up and go? Remember active verb "repent and be baptized" faith with action is what God requires. Yes you can say "Faith alone" as long as you understand that faith is active and not stagnant Romans 4:20-25 Remember the throught here is base on the teaching in chapter 3 of Romans about what the law couldn't do Romans 3:28-31, also Paul spoke on this issue because it excluded the gentiles from Christ by the teachings of the jews. vs.29 |
||||||
209 | Luke 7:29-30? | Acts 2:38 | Grace and Truth | 50586 | ||
There's only one baptism! Eph.4:5. | ||||||
210 | New life? | Acts 2:38 | Grace and Truth | 50592 | ||
In Romans 6:1-9 mainly vs.4 Our new life starts before or after baptism? | ||||||
211 | Luke 7:29-30? | Acts 2:38 | Grace and Truth | 50599 | ||
Romans 6:3-4 is the one baptism in Eph 4:5! | ||||||
212 | Luke 7:29-30? | Acts 2:38 | Grace and Truth | 50610 | ||
Please give scriptures to show how you come to your conclusion! | ||||||
213 | Luke 7:29-30? | Acts 2:38 | Grace and Truth | 50621 | ||
You are not handling the word of God correctly, for you to twist it like you are doing is wrong! Acts 8:26-39 will not allow you to get away it, I suppose the water to which the eunuch refered to is the Holy Spirit also, but God's word won't let you take it apart like you have been doing. vs.39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing. This is the one baptism in Eph 4:5, 1Cor 12:13, Romans 6:4, Col 2:12. Yes the Spirit is there doing the operation on the heart by faith in Jesus Christ, He (quickened) us made us alive! in Christ Jesus. |
||||||
214 | Can God save us the way HE WANTS TOO? | Acts 2:38 | Grace and Truth | 50626 | ||
"and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith" --Philippians 3:9 You are still looking at things that pertain to the Law, this is what Paul was telling the church at Rome about Abraham. "but true faith is accompanied by repentance and leads to obedience. And all of these are gifts of God". This is the whole point (obedience)! In Acts 2:38 the people were (obedient) to what Peter said. Now did everybody (obey)? No! But they that gladly recieved his words were baptized. Acts2:41 |
||||||
215 | New life? | Acts 2:38 | Grace and Truth | 50636 | ||
Joe, I don't quite understand you point here! "So, to answer your question, our new life starts apart from baptism internally, and the promise is maked externally by baptism". Paul saids we are buried with Christ by baptism,into his death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life, Then he explans how this is done in the next six verses. | ||||||
216 | New life? | Acts 2:38 | Grace and Truth | 50639 | ||
"I still believe if a person prayes to make Christ Lord with no chance of being baptized and dies, say while in the hospital, that person would be saved. However, any person who refuses to be baptized by immerson has a fatal flaw in their faith. I hope this does not confuse you". Believe me I'll never be confused about a bible subject such as this, I love talking about God's word, and I try daily to live by it. But about your last statement, that's not a biblical concept, although I heard it before, no one in the new testament other said anything like that! You must show scripture for that belief! |
||||||
217 | Can God save us the way HE WANTS TOO? | Acts 2:38 | Grace and Truth | 50642 | ||
Joe! I see you stopped at vs.18 in Gal 3, if you would have kept reading you would get all of what Paul was saying, vs. 23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. 24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. 26 For you are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. This is God's promise to us! I am so glad that this thing about baptism is not a mistery to me, and I am glad that I'm a baptized Holy Spirit filled man of God. 'Praise the Lord'. We need to teach what the bible says, all of it. This would not be an issue if Jesus had not said it. Jesus said it, I believe it, and that settles it! | ||||||
218 | Luke 7:29-30? | Acts 2:38 | Grace and Truth | 50643 | ||
Steve! There is no contradiction here, Col 2:12 can help you see the point you bring up in your statement here "one would have to say that water and Spirit baptisms are synonomous and/or instantaneous at the time of immersion". In Col 2:12 Paul says that God operates at the time of immersion through faith! vs. 13 also said He hath quickened us together with him, (CHRIST)! | ||||||
219 | Luke 7:29-30? | Acts 2:38 | Grace and Truth | 50759 | ||
If you understood Holy Spirit baptism, you wouldn't speak another word! Holy Spirit baptism happened only two times in the book of Acts, chapters 2,10 and no other place! But let you tell it, it happen all over the bible! When the light shines darkness will flee! | ||||||
220 | Luke 7:29-30? | Acts 2:38 | Grace and Truth | 50984 | ||
Two time without the laying on of hand's is what I'm refering to. That's Holy Spirit baptism! | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ] Next > Last [16] >> |