You have refused to peruse through the particular response to your questions, in which the meaning of "authorized version" was explained, about which you asked some six-odd questions. I see not even a considered "thank you" for taking the time for answering them, nor for supplying a reference to improve your posts for your own benefit and the convenience of others, nor of hinting quite broadly of how to amend your manners in using this site.
Apparently you either do not want to get into exactly what the Scripture says, or else do not know how to do that. The allegory of the Scripture not being able to stand on its own without your help of human traditions and a fallible church organization simply proves the error of using a paradigm not needed nor supported by Scripture itself. When I talk Scripture and you talk only Roman tradition, we are like ships passing in the night -- no communication.
So, I find debating with you unprofitable to the Lord's purposes and mine, because unlike the noble Bereans, your mind is closed, and you will not search the Scriptures to see if what I said was true.
You haven't won anything by being tantalizing, you have been just inviting me to irretrievably waste my time that can be spent on other projects the Lord has lined up for me. And you certainly are not only refusing the options The God has given you, but also are trying to prevemt others from recognizing and accepting them.
To further your intentions would be a sinful occupation, and I am refusing to participate. If you think this is humorous, let's just wait a little while and see what the end is. It will not be laughable if Sherlock misses the boat, will it?
no, i find it sad, not funny.
let’s recap, i came into this thread because i read someone declare mr sherlock still lost, even though he confesses the Apostolic Faith. God alone knows if mr sherlock is in Christ, but this poster took it on himself to opine on something only God would know. when challenged, he backed away from doing exactly what he did. right there i knew i what i was dealing with, but i pursued the matter since the truth of Jesus Christ would be made known thru the debate.
it is hard to debate someone who claims some level of knowledge on the Scriptures and history, yet offered the following gems:
1. constantine established the statist roman religion
2. tertullian was a hero of the faith, yet believed in baptismal regeneration which is a roman pagan belief
3. montanism was an example of early Christians, when they believed in baptismal regeneration and continuing revelation from the Holy Spirit. this is in direct opposition to wittman christians, which hold to a closed canon.
4. novatians were early Christians, when they believed in the pagan belief of baptismal regeneration.
5. ditto for donatists.
but love is patient, and i am commanded to love. so the debate continued, even though i don’t think the other side appreciated having their lack of knowledge of history exposed. oh well.
maybe we would do better by concentrating on the Scriptures, a wittman christian surely believes the Scriptures. so a discussion of Acts 2:38 ensued.
to those who follow the 16th century tradition of man and deny the Apostolic teaching of baptismal regeneration, Acts 2:38 is devastating and they know it. for if baptism is “ for the remission of sins” as Peter stated, they are teaching a false gospel and not the Apostolic Faith.
so when challenged on Acts 2:38, what did my friend do? he changes the Scripture to read something no honest Greek scholar would agree with!! ( we are supposed to have the Scriptures change us, not us the Scriptures ) this is something the cults like Jehovah Witnesses do! i pointed out that everyone ( Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox ) agrees Acts 2:38 says baptism is for the forgiveness of sins. reading the wittman christian way makes no logical sense and that is why no Bible that i am aware of translates Acts 2:38 as wittman apparently proposes.
so you can see that my friend, who claims to want to “get into exactly what the Scriptures say” really wants to get into exactly what wittman wants them to say and is not opposed to changing Scripture to meet the wittman preconceived notion of what they ought to say. very cult like.
but love is patient.
my friend ignored my question on the authority for the canon, i am not suprised. it would be a bitter pill to acknowledge the same “romanist cult” is the one who set the 27 book NT canon i bet a wittman christian uses ( if they use the “authorized version” which is intersting they would use a version translated by so called scholars who apparently didn’t understand Greek well enough to translate Acts 2:38 properly, but that’s another story i am sure my friend does not want to discuss )
did the “noble bereans” change the words of Scriptures when they were checking them? just saying.......
so now my friend looks like he is saying “no mas”, and i understand. after all, when i am falsely accused of using “roman tradition” ( i challenge him to find where i ever claimed this ) as opposed to the Apostolic Tradition or Sacred Tradition, you know you are losing the debate.
i stand ready, willing and able to discuss any matter or subject and answer any questions. i only ask that the other side takes the same approach.
for example, i asked where the Scriptures ever say that baptism is is an outward display of what has happened already or that baptism is a first act of obedience. cue the crickets, no answer will be forthcoming. but he wants to “get into exactly what the Scriptures say” riiigghttt!
i ask where the Scriptures ever use the term “water baptism”? cue the crickets! or where the Bible says there are two baptisms for the Christian, water and spirit??
somehow, i think the man who wants to “get into exactly what the Scriptures say” will want to talk about what wittman thinks the Scriptures say. ( with a lot of “romanist” jabs thrown in for good measure! )
so maybe a Protestant is reading this who is not a delicate flower and can man up ( or woman up BB ) and actually have a civil, Christ honoring debate.
finally, i congratulate man who calls me an “opposer”, ( that did make me laugh i must admit! ) on posting the comments from a dr strouse of the baptist theological seminary. dr strouse is honest enough to realize that if Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Cyprian, Athanatius and Augustine were Christian, he is not. he is honest enough to realize that he has a different gospel than these men and both can’t be true. many baptists claim to be following the same faith as these fathers ( BB call your office ) but Strouse is dead on. if these men were correct, strouse is a heretic who opposes the Church of Christ.
now, let’s just see, who should i believe has truth, Strouse or Ignatius??
Ignatius was ordained a bishop of the Catholic Church by Peter himslef in Antioch. for Peter to do this, he would have had to know Ignatius was a faithful man. Ignatius also was a disciple of the Apostle John . Ignatius was a very beloved Bishop in the Church and Rome saw how effective he was in spreading the Gospel that they had him put to death in Rome.
now, call me a “romanist”, but i don’t think Peter would have laid hands on someone who did not understand what baptism is, and doesn’t understand the Eucharist.
now, call me a “romanist”, but i think anyone who spends one week with the Apostle John would understand what he taught about baptism and the Eucharist, let alone years Ignatius probably did with him.
now, call me a “romanist”, but Ignatius would not have been beloved by fellow Christians if he did not teach exactly what the Apostles taught about baptism and the Eucharist.
now, call me a “romanist”, but Ignatius would have renounced Christ to save his life if he was not a true Holy Spirit filled believer in Jesus Christ and His Body, the Church.
so who to believe? St Ignatius or a Dr Strouse?
i think i know what a wittman christian would answer.
Translation of Acts 2:38 By Baptist Schools and Scholars
Luther W. Martin
St. James, Missouri
We have yet to locate a single Baptist scholar of New Testament Greek, the koine Greek in which the New Testament was originally written, who will turn his back upon his learning and scholarship, in order to wrest the meaning of Acts 2:38. It is not unusual to hear of individual Baptist preachers with a smattering of exposure to the Greek language who will assert that scholars exist who render “eis” in Acts 2:38, “because of.”
However, when these gentlemen are pressed for the New Testament translation that so gives this passage, they have failed every time. In fact, they have even failed to produce a professor or instructor of New Testament Greek, who will scuttle his scholarship in order to render “eis” as “because of.”
American Baptist Commentary on Acts
In my library, I have a Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, authored by Professor H. B. Hacket, D. D., of Newton Theological Institution, and edited by Alvah Hovey, D. D., LL. D., in consultation with Ezra Abbot, LL. D. Concerning Acts 2:38, it states:
37 “Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and the rest of the apostles, Brethren, what shall we do? And Peter said unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
“IN ORDER TO THE FORG1VENESS OF SINS (Matt. 26:28; Luke 3:3) we connect naturally with both the preceding verbs. This clause states the motive or object which should induce them to repent and be baptized. It enforces the entire exhortation, not one part of it to the exclusion of the other.” (page 53.)
Charles B. William’s Translation (1950 Edition)
38 “Peter said to them, ‘You must repent—and, as an expression of it, let everyone of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ—that you may have your sins f orgiven; and then you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
Concerning the above translation, Professor J. R. Mantey, of the Department of New Testament Interpretation, Northern Baptist Theological Seminary, Chicago, has stated: “We concluded that it (C. B. Williams Translation. L. W. M.) is the best translation of the New Testament in the English language.”
Charles B. Williams has served as Dean of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Fort Worth, Texas. Professor Ray Summers, head of Department of New Testament, at the same institution, has written in reference to the Charles B. Williams Translation, “I commend it most heartily to all who desire to know the real message of the New Testament.”
Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
38 “And Peter said to them, ‘Repent and be immersed each one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto remission of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Letter to L. W. M., 12-2-’42.)
University of Chicago Divinity School
38 “And Peter (said) to them,’Repent (plural) and let each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for (lit., “to”) the forgiveness (or “remission”) of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’” (Westcott-Hort text). (Letter to L. W. M., 12-2 ‘42, and signed by Allen Wikgren.)
Northern Baptist Theological Seminary
38 “And Peter (said) to them, ‘Repent and be baptized (be immersed) each one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’”
“The remission of sins is conditioned by one’s repentance, turning from sin, and by one’s identifying himself completely with Christ, as baptism implied. Thus, the believer turns from sin to Christ and all that Christ wants him to be and do.” (Letter to L. W. M., 12-10’42, signed by Prof. J. R. Mantey.)
H. B. Montgomery Translation (1924)
38 “Repent,” answered Peter, “and 6e baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
Mrs. Helen Barrett Montgomery, the translator of the above passage, was president of the Northern Baptist Convention in 1921. She was awarded an honorary LL. D., degree by Wellesley College.
Summary and Conclusion
In each and every one of the above translations, the Greek word “eis” points forward to the remission of sins; not backwards toward something that supposedly happened prior to repentance and baptism. The words “unto,” “to,” “that you may have,” and “for” were used by these Baptist scholars as properly translating “eis.” No scholar has ever rendered its usage in Acts 2:38 as pointing backward.
Truth Magazine VI: 5, pp. 9-10
February 1962
Home Page | Top of Page | Archives Home | © Guardian of Truth Foundation
found this article in truth magazine ( which i believe to be Church of Christ )
interesting to read honest Baptist Greek scholars and how they faithfully translate Acts 2:38 rather than something called ATP = a precise translation.
ok, let’s see what the Scriptures teach about Baptism. as promised i will look at Acts 8.
the Church has received from the Apostles the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, that is a person becomes born again thru baptism into Christ. the baptized receive remission of their sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit, just as Peter preached in Acts 2. ( the non-precise version for all the wittman christians out there )
now, certain men came along in the 16th century and using the Catholic NT, started preaching a new doctrine on baptism ( or should i say baptisms ) they said the Scriptures actually teach two baptisms, spirit baptism is for regeneration, forgiveness of sins and receiving the Holy Spirit and it is done to you by the Holy Spirit the moment you accept Jesus as your Savior. after you are born again, they say you should do something they call “water baptism”, which is a first act of obedience and is done to publicly symbolize what has happened already.
ok, i think i fairly presented what both sides teach, Christians can do that in a debate because we are not afraid of the truth, the truth is our friend.
Acts 2:38 pretty well lines up with the historical, orthodox teaching on baptism, this is why some try and play greek gymnastics to justify their twisting the plain words of Peter.
but what about Acts 8, does it also back up the historical orthodox faith or the baptist/wittman position?
before we look and see what Acts 8:26-39 says, the following must be stated:
1. the Holy Spirit sent Philip to the eunuch to teach him.
2. the eunuch had the Scriptures, but needed the Church ( Philip in this case ) to open his spiritual eyes.
3. Philip used the oral teaching to accomplish this, no sola scriptura was in evidence.
4. Acts 8 does not contain every word spoken by Philip and the eunuch, but we can see by what is recorded and their actions, what must have been said.
i am going to assume everyone can read Acts 8 for themself, before continuing reading this ( i have no idea what the “precise translation” says, i have the RSV.
Philip asks the eunuch if he understands what he is reading in Isiah, and the eunuch is wise and humble enough to answer, how can i unless some one guides me? ( oh, is that attitude all too rare, but i digress )
then Philip sat with him and explained that verse and preached to him the good news of Jesus.
now, let’s pause here for a moment and note Luke doesn’t tell us everything Philip preached, but it obviously mentioned “baptism” to him at some point.
in v36, the eunuch says “see, here is water. what is to prevent me from being baptized?”
very interesting. we know at this point the eunuch has not expressed faith in Jesus Christ and therefore could not have been “spirit baptized” already.
how can we know this? because if he had said a sinner’s prayer, or accepted Jesus as his Savior, Philip would not have responded as he did in v37, “if you believe with all your heart, you may”
you see, at this point the eunuch wanted to be baptized before Philip heard his declaration of faith “ i believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God”
why was the eunuch so concerned about being baptized?? ( notice the eunuch says what’s to prevent me from being baptized, he doesn’t say what’s to prevent me from being “water baptized” he also didn’t say, now that i am spirit baptized what’s to prevent me from being water baptized.
no, the eunuch was anxious to be baptized obviously because Philip told him what baptism is for, remission of sins and receiving the Holy Spirit and being placed into the Body of Christ.
if the eunuch had already expressed faith in Jesus, Philip would have responded “ nothing prevents you from being baptized”. since he had not, Philip had to say “if you believe with all your heart, you may “
this is devastating to the 16th century tradition. the eunuch wanted salvation, he wanted remission of his sins, he wanted the Holy Spirit, he wanted baptism.
Philip made no mention of two baptisms, no mention of a first act of obedience and obviously the baptism wasn’t for an outward sign of what had happened because Philip and the eunuch were the only ones mentioned, there was no local congregation to “witness” the baptism.
absolutely, 100% puts the nail in the coffin to the 16th century tradition.
finally, let me mention the mode of baptism. i have heard baptists say Acts 8 teaches immersion because it says they both went into the water and both came out of the water.
i have witnessed Baptist’s baptisms,only the one being baptized is immersed, i have never witnessed the minister immerse himself.
Acts 8 does not mention how much water there was. for all we know, it could have been a little creek that was a foot deep. obviously, in that case, immersion would have been impossible. they just both would have went into the foot deep creek and Philip could have poured water on the eunuch and then they both came out of the creek. the Scriptures are silent as to mode.
what we do know from Apostolic Tradition, is that the mode could have been immersion, pouring or sprinkling.
Jesus didn’t command or authorize a mode, He commanded teaching and baptism.
Glory to God in the highest. And on earth peace to men of good will. We praise You. We bless You. We adore you. We glorify You. We give You thanks for Your great glory. O Lord God, heavenly King, God the Father almighty. O Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son. O Lord God, Lamb of God, Son of the Father: you Who take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us. You Who take away the sins of the world, receive our prayer. You Who sit at the right hand of the Father, have mercy on us. For you alone are holy. You alone are the Lord. You alone, O Jesus Christ, are most high. Together with the Holy Spirit in the glory of God the Father. Amen
finally, for the benefit of my friend who is concerned that mr sherlock is lost and still unsaved, i have posted above the “The Gloria” which is prayed at every Mass. ( those who seperate themselves from the Church would not know this )
i invite my friend to read that prayer, focus on the words
“O Lord God, Lamb of God, Son of the Father: you Who take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us. “
when Mr Sherlock prays those words to Jesus, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world, to have mercy on him, does Jesus answer this prayer of Mr Sherlock?