Please ignore Steve Winter
rdbyrne
free offer of the Gospel of Grace.
Pastor Steve: I ask that you please stop posting on
alt.religion.christian.presbyterian.
Your posts lack the essence of Christian charity: Grace.
Perhaps the cross-posting is designed to do nothing more than engender
contempt? Is this an effort to promote your business? It certainly
does little for whatever cause you have.
Mike
Once read to your children, they will NEVER forget them!
Don't fail to miss them! :
Steven Buehler
news:37865593.02070...@posting.google.com...
> Pastor Steve: I ask that you please stop posting on
> alt.religion.christian.presbyterian.
That certainly won't work ... even forcible removals by multiple ISPs (whom
he is now suing) haven't stopped this nutcase.
SWB
Otto Lathum
"Steven Buehler" <ste...@sanctuaryweb.org> wrote in message
news:ar4W8.186508$0g1.3...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
frank
Huldah
>Please ignore Steve Winter...Except to plead with him to embrace the
>free offer of the Gospel of Grace.
>
>Pastor Steve: I ask that you please stop posting on
>alt.religion.christian.presbyterian.
Lots of luck!
>Your posts lack the essence of Christian charity: Grace.
>
>Perhaps the cross-posting is designed to do nothing more than engender
>contempt? Is this an effort to promote your business? It certainly
>does little for whatever cause you have.
---
Huldah
For the Bible Truth about the Trinity, 'Oneness,'
and Jehovah's Witnesses:
Pastor Steve Winter
>SWB
Malicious false-christian filth like Mr. Buehler don't like to see the Bible
studies that show them up for the fakes that they are.
I am glad to see the devil's filth angry!
-=( A BASIC DEFECTIVE PREMISE OF THE FALSE CHRISTIAN CULTS )=-
The "believe only" cults are basing their salvation upon the defective
premise that the early Christians to whom the original epistles were
addressed, "believed" the apostles, but didn't obey them. Then they
are also building upon their defective premise that the apostles
accepted as "brethren" folks who refused to obey them.
Every time that a deceiving cultist like Steven Buehler leads a victim to the
book of Galatians, or Romans, or Ephesians to "explain" to them why obedience
to Acts 2:38 isn't necessary for salvation; they deceptively ignore the fact
that the addressees of the epistles of the Bible were those who had OBEYED the
Acts 2:38 plan of salvation.
Unless a person BECOMES a Christian, they are NOT even the
individuals that epistles containing the benevolent promises are addressed to.
It's as if they are holding a promissory note that is addressed to someone
else. They rejoice about its promised value (which is real), but don't
realize that it's not addressed to them. The benevolent promises of God are
only for those who OBEY Him.
A brief glance at just a couple of scriptures serves to expose the
majority of these cultists like Steven Buehler.
True preachers teach why the Bible needs to be obeyed, while the
Satanic cultists like like Steven Buehler "proclaim" their "salvation without
obedience".
The book of Romans shows that a "non-believer" like like Steven Buehler was
recognized by "lack of obedience" to the original Apostolic message (Acts
2:38)
Romans 10:16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord,
who hath believed our report?
Deceivers like Steven Buehler often take verses from Ephesians (a letter to
the CHURCH at Ephesus), and ignore the fact that the Ephesian Church was
FOUNDED upon the Acts 2:38 plan of salvation. The membership of the Ephesian
Church had ALREADY OBEYED Acts 2:38.
Notice carefully the founding of the Ephesian church and pay careful
attention to Paul adhering faithfully to the Acts 2:38 plan even though John
the Baptist had already baptised those individuals.
Acts 19:1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at
Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came
to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
Acts 19:2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost
since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much
as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
Here also is clear proof in verse 2 that a person doesn't receive
the Holy Ghost just because they "believe". The "believe only"
cultists will often teach that lie.
Acts 19:3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye
baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
When Paul saw that they had not received the Spirit (of Christ),
he questioned the validity of their baptism.
Acts 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism
of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe
on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
Believers were/are ALWAYS obeyers.
Acts 19:5 When they heard [this], they were baptized in the
name of the Lord Jesus.
Folks who had been baptised by John the Baptist himself had
to be RE-Baptised in Jesus name in order to become Christians.
Acts 19:6 And when Paul had laid [his] hands upon them, the Holy
Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
After obeying Christian baptism they did receive the same Spirit
of Christ that the Apostles had received in Acts 2:4.
False-christian dirt like Steven Buehler don't like to see the truth
published.
Pastor sTeve Winter
--
Apostolic Oneness Pentecostal /*/ PreRapture Ministry
http://www.onenessapostolic.org for Bible studies (text and audio)
Have you obeyed Acts 2:38 as Paul taught in Acts 19:4-6?
Pastor Steve Winter
>Please ignore Steve Winter...Except to plead with him to embrace the
>free offer of the Gospel of Grace.
>
>Pastor Steve: I ask that you please stop posting on
>alt.religion.christian.presbyterian.
I can certainly understand why a false-christian scum like yourself would not
want the truth posted.
Some of your brethern are making headlines these days. See
http://www.prerapture.org/Sewers.html
Pastor Winter
John Fraser
It's odd that your lawyer couldn't respond this quickly to Mr. Buehler
or at all for that matter. Yet, you can. For the record, the only thing
false about those who you antagonize is the fact that they don't give you
the pedestal which you desire.
Cheers,
John
"Pastor Steve Winter" <steve.win...@prime.org> wrote in message
news:53skiu42usp8nvrea...@4ax.com...
Mark Bassett
"John Fraser" <jfr...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:ZlzW8.4$4z2....@sapphire.mtt.net...
> Good morning Steve;
>
> It's odd that your lawyer couldn't respond this quickly to Mr. Buehler
> or at all for that matter. Yet, you can. For the record, the only thing
> false about those who you antagonize is the fact that they don't give you
> the pedestal which you desire.
I think if you examined the COST of response, you would have your answer.
There is an old addage that says "put your money where your mouth is."
It is true that some legal representatives work with expectation of payment
only if there is victory, however even those who are moderately wise will
limit the extent of the work. Remember, this individual will have somewhere
in the neighborhood of 15-20 responses to individually consider (at a
typical cost of $100.00/hr) each time there is a provocation on his part.
A lawyer with a clear and present case, MIGHT be willing to extend their
resources to a client without limitation. However, in this case there is a
very questionable action. If anyone knows this (and we do), the one whose
name is signed to the complaint knows it best of all.
Frequently, we notice that both the quality and cost of response to a
theological matter on Usenet is simply having a little free time.
> Cheers,
> John
John Fraser
"Mark Bassett" <mbasset@not_optonline.net> wrote in message
news:2jBW8.95657$7e2.2...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
>
> "John Fraser" <jfr...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:ZlzW8.4$4z2....@sapphire.mtt.net...
> > Good morning Steve;
> >
> > It's odd that your lawyer couldn't respond this quickly to Mr.
Buehler
> > or at all for that matter. Yet, you can. For the record, the only
thing
> > false about those who you antagonize is the fact that they don't give
you
> > the pedestal which you desire.
>
> I think if you examined the COST of response, you would have your answer.
> There is an old addage that says "put your money where your mouth is."
I wonder if Mr. Stark was hesitant in taking this case on.
>
> It is true that some legal representatives work with expectation of
payment
> only if there is victory, however even those who are moderately wise will
> limit the extent of the work. Remember, this individual will have
somewhere
> in the neighborhood of 15-20 responses to individually consider (at a
> typical cost of $100.00/hr) each time there is a provocation on his part.
>
> A lawyer with a clear and present case, MIGHT be willing to extend their
> resources to a client without limitation. However, in this case there is a
> very questionable action. If anyone knows this (and we do), the one whose
> name is signed to the complaint knows it best of all.
If funding is a problem, could the case could collapse on that issue
alone? Could having the case moved to a higher Court spiral costs beyond
his expectations?
>
> Frequently, we notice that both the quality and cost of response to a
> theological matter on Usenet is simply having a little free time.
No argument there.
Cheers,
John
Mark Bassett
> Good morning Mark;
>
> "Mark Bassett" <mbasset@not_optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:2jBW8.95657$7e2.2...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> >
> > "John Fraser" <jfr...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > news:ZlzW8.4$4z2....@sapphire.mtt.net...
> > > Good morning Steve;
> > >
> > > It's odd that your lawyer couldn't respond this quickly to Mr.
> Buehler
> > > or at all for that matter. Yet, you can. For the record, the only
> thing
> > > false about those who you antagonize is the fact that they don't give
> you
> > > the pedestal which you desire.
> >
> > I think if you examined the COST of response, you would have your
answer.
> > There is an old addage that says "put your money where your mouth is."
>
> I wonder if Mr. Stark was hesitant in taking this case on.
No need to wonder. Mr Winter publicly bragged in October of 2000, after
numerous months and years of threatening prior, that he had been assured by
the legal staff that his action would be ready to file in a few days. This
whole hammering on the demand that he was going to sue folks went on and on
and on. It is impossible to comprehend that there was not significant
hesitation. There is at least one motion filed for sanctions, as a result of
the nature of the claims, the shocking lack of legal basis for such an
action, and the extent to which it looks like an effort to escalate fees and
and cause vexation using the legal system. I don't think that even a man
that graduated in the bottom 10th of his class and barely passed the bar
would not be "hesitant.
We also have a complaint that is written with numerous errors, both with
respect to grammar and also citations of US Code. In fact there are enough
errors to really cause me to wonder.
> > It is true that some legal representatives work with expectation of
> payment
> > only if there is victory, however even those who are moderately wise
will
> > limit the extent of the work. Remember, this individual will have
> somewhere
> > in the neighborhood of 15-20 responses to individually consider (at a
> > typical cost of $100.00/hr) each time there is a provocation on his
part.
> >
> > A lawyer with a clear and present case, MIGHT be willing to extend their
> > resources to a client without limitation. However, in this case there is
a
> > very questionable action. If anyone knows this (and we do), the one
whose
> > name is signed to the complaint knows it best of all.
>
> If funding is a problem, could the case could collapse on that issue
> alone? Could having the case moved to a higher Court spiral costs beyond
> his expectations?
Surely there are good reasons to limit expectations, particularly of a money
grab.
Pastor Brian
http://www.stevewinter.com/
http://www.enteract.com/~sadams/winfaq.html
Baptism and Acts 2:38
Acts 2:38 is one of the more controversy verses in the Bible regarding
baptism and whether or not it is the requirement for salvation. On the
surface it seems to support it. But upon closer examination, we will see
that it does not teach baptismal regeneration: that baptism saves.
First of all, rarely is doctrine ever made from a single verse. We need
to look at all of what God's words says about a subject in order to
accurately understand what it teaches. I will briefly tackle of this verse
in the following manner.
Examination of the verse's syntax, grammar and structure.
Examine other verses dealing with the forgiveness of sins.
Examine the verse in its covenant context.
Grammar and Structure of Acts 2:38
In Acts 2:38 the main verb is metanoesate (change mind), the aorist
direct imperative (a command) of metanoeo which means to repent (change
mind). This refers to that initial repentance of the sinner unto salvation.
The verb translated "be baptized" is in the indirect passive imperative (a
command to receive; hence, passive voice in Greek1) of baptizo, which does
not give it the same direct command implied in "repent." The preposition
"for" in the phrase "for the remission of sins" in Greek is "eis," unto or
into, and it is in the accusative case (direct object). It can mean "for
the purpose of identifying you with the remission of sins." It is the same
preposition we find in 1 Cor. 10:2 in the phrase "and were baptized unto
Moses." Note that both contexts are dealing with baptism and
identification. These people were baptized or spiritually identifying
themselves with the purposes and vision of Moses. Repentance, therefore, is
presented as identifying an individual with the remission of his sins, even
as baptism following repentance provides an external identification visible
by others. Repentance is something that concerns an individual and God while
baptism involves others. That is why baptistheto (let be immersed) is in the
passive voice indicating that one does not baptize himself, but is baptized
by another usually in the presence of others. Repentance, however, is an act
taking place within a person's heart as the Holy Spirit moves in the sinner.
But, all this Greek stuff may be confusing. Let me break it down. All
people are commanded to repent for their sins. This is what believers have
already done by becoming Christians. Baptism, then, is the outward
identification with being a Christian for those who have already repented.
Also, as the Israelites were "baptized into Moses" (1 Cor. 10:2), so too,
Christians are baptized into Jesus. That is, they are identifying
themselves, publicly, with Christ. Likewise, in Rom. 6:1-5 where baptism is
related to death, burial, and resurrection, it is again and identification
with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection. That is why it is said
of Christians that we have died to sin (Rom. 6:2, 11; Gal. 2:20; Col. 2:20;
Col. 3:3; 1 Pet. 2:24).
This verse is not demonstrating that baptism is essential for
salvation, but that baptism is the thing which we receive, in order to
publicly identify ourselves completely and totally with Christ as a
manifestation of the inward work God has done within us.
Other verses dealing with salvation
Justification is the work of God where the righteousness of Jesus is
reckoned to the sinner so the sinner is declared, by God, as being righteous
under the Law (Rom. 4:3; 5:1,9; Gal. 2:16; 3:11). This righteousness is not
earned or retained by any effort of the saved. Justification is an
instantaneous occurrence with the result being eternal life. It is based
completely and solely upon Jesus' sacrifice on the cross (1 Pet. 2:24) and
is received by faith alone (Rom. 4:5; 5:1; Eph. 2:8-9). No works are
necessary whatsoever to obtain justification. Otherwise, it is not a gift
(Rom. 6:23). Therefore, we are justified by faith (Rom. 5:1).
Nowhere in the Bible does it state that we are justified by grace and
baptism or faith and baptism or faith and anything else. On the contrary,
baptism is excluded from the gospel message. Paul said that he came to
preach the gospel, not to baptize: "I am thankful that I did not baptize any
of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one can say that you were baptized
into my name. (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that,
I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to
baptize, but to preach the gospel..." (1 Cor. 1:14-17).
Likewise, Paul told us exactly what the gospel that saves is. He said
in 1 Cor. 15:1-4, "Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I
preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2 by
which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you,
unless you believed in vain. 3 For I delivered to you as of first importance
what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the
Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third
day according to the Scriptures." Note that Paul state and that the gospel
is what saints and he did not include baptism in the definition of the
gospel.
So, we must ask if baptism is necessary for salvation, then why did
Paul downplay it and even exclude it from the description of what is
required for salvation? It is because baptism isn't necessary for salvation.
Further proof that baptism is not a requirement of salvation can be
found in Acts 10:44-46. Peter was preaching the gospel, people became
saved, and then they were baptized. Acts 10:44-46 says,
"While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who
heard the message. The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were
astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the
Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. Then
Peter said, 'Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water?
They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.' So he ordered that they
be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with
them for a few days" (NIV).
These people were saved. The gift of the Holy Spirit was on the
Gentiles and they were speaking in tongues. This is significant because
tongues is a gift given to believers, see 1 Cor. 14:1-5. Also, unbelievers
don't praise God. They can't because praise to the true God is a deep
spiritual matter that is foreign to the unsaved (1 Cor. 2:14). Therefore,
the ones in Acts 10:44-46 who are speaking in tongues and praising God are
definitely saved and they are saved before they are baptized. This isn't an
exception. It is a reality. This proves that baptism is not necessary for
salvation and that Acts 2:38 is not teaching its necessity either. But, if
it isn't saying that, then why is baptism mentioned here?
Biblical Covenant Context
A covenant is a pact or agreement between two or more parties. Very
often, covenants have visible signs to represent them. The elements of
bread and wine in the communion support are good examples of this.
Circumcision was both a covenant sign and and the initiatory rite into the
Abrahamic covenant (Gen. 17:10). But this covenant sign did not save
anyone.
God said to Abraham, "I will establish my covenant as an everlasting
covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the
generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after
you" (Gen. 17:7, NIV). God later instructed Abraham to circumcise not only
every adult male, but also eight day old male infants as a sign of the
covenant (Gen. 17:9-13). If the children were not circumcised, they were not
considered to be under the promissory Abrahamic covenant. This is why Moses'
wife circumcised her son and threw the foreskin at Moses' feet after Moses
failed to circumcise him, (Exo. 4:24-25). She knew the importance of the
covenant between God and her children. But at the same time we must
understand that circumcision did not guarantee salvation to those who
received it. It was a rite meant only for the people of God, who were born
into the family of God (who were then the Jews). It was an outward sign of
the covenant promise. To reject it was to reject the covenant. But,
accepting it did not guarantee salvation.
Another theological debate at risk here
There is debate within Christianity on the nature of baptism and to
whom it may be administered. I am not here trying to convince anyone of the
proper objects of baptism whether it be infant baptism or adult only
baptism. I only present the following information as a proof that baptism
is a covenant sign, and not essential to salvation.
In the New Testament, circumcision is mentioned many times. But with
respect to baptism it is specifically mentioned in Col. 2:11-12: "In him you
were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a
circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by
Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through
your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead" (NIV). In
these verses, baptism and circumcision are related. The extent of that
relationship is still being debated. Nevertheless, Paul also says in Rom.
2:29, "But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which
is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not
from men, but from God." As you can see, for the Christian, circumcision is
of the heart. And because it is, we Christians are now included the
Abrahamic covenant where before, we, the Gentiles, were not. "Remember that
you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth
of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and
without God in the world," (Eph. 2:12, NASB).
In Gal. 3:8, Paul calls the promise of the Abrahamic covenant, the
gospel. He says, "And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the
Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, 'All
the nations shall be blessed in you, 9 So then those who are of faith are
blessed with Abraham, the believer.'" (Gal. 3:8-9). So, Paul calls the
Abrahamic covenant, the gospel. The sign of this Abrahamic covenant was
circumcision.
Here is the catch. Since the Abrahamic covenant is still valid (we are
justified by faith -- Gal. 3:8), then is there a covenant sign for us today?
I think the answer is a resounding, yes. I believe that baptism replaces
the Old Testament covenant sign of circumcision because 1) there was a New
Covenant in the communion supper (Luke 22:20), and 2) in circumcision there
was the shedding of blood, but in baptism no blood is shed. The covenant
sign has changed now that the Law has been fulfilled in Christ.
If you understand that baptism is a covenant sign, then you can see
that it is a representation of the reality of Christ circumcising our hearts
(Rom. 2:29; Col. 2:11-12). It is our outward proclamation of the inward
spiritual blessing of regeneration, of "heart-circumcision." It comes after
faith which is a gift of God (Rom. 13:3) and the work of God (John 6:28).
Again, baptism is the covenant sign of our covenant with God.
Acts 2:39 and "The Promise"
This would explain why Peter in verse 39 of Acts 2 says, "For the
promise is for you and your children, and for all who are far off, as many
as the Lord our God shall call to Himself." What promise is Peter speaking
of when he says "the promise"? Notice that he does not say "this promise"
but "the promise." If Peter was referring to baptism as the promise he
would have said "this promise." Instead, he used a phrase "the promise."
This is significant.
The phrase "the promise" occurs in 26 Bible verses in the New
Testament. It is used in reference to several different topics.
The Holy Spirit, (Luke 24:49; Acts 2:33; Gal. 3:14).
God's promise to Abraham to multiply his descendents in Egypt, physical as
well as spiritual, (Acts 7:17; Heb. 6:13, 15, 17).
The promise of the Messiah, (Acts 13:32; Acts 26:6-7; Rom. 4:13,14,16; Gal.
3:17,19,22; Eph. 3:6; 2 Tim. 1:1).
The promise of eternal redemption (Heb. 9:15; 1 John 2:25).
The promise that Sarah would have a child (Rom. 4:20; Gal. 4:23).
The promise that through Isaac, the world would be blessed, (Rom. 9:8).
The promise of Jesus' return (2 Pet. 3:4).
The promise to kill Paul by Paul's adversaries (Acts 22:21).
But, we are most interested in its context in Acts 2 which begins with
the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:1-13). Peter then preaches a
sermon and quotes many OT scriptures (Acts 2:14-35). In verse 2:22, Peter
specifically says, "Men of Israel, listen to these words..." Peter is
speaking to the Jews. It was to the Jews that "the promise" of the
outpouring of the Spirit was given. Peter is speaking covenant language of
God as He quotes the OT. Since Peter quotes Joel 2:28-32 in Acts 2:17-18,
we can easily see what Peter is talking about when speaking of "the promise"
in Acts 2:39.
"And it shall be in the last days,' God says, 'that I will pour forth of My
Spirit upon all mankind; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams,
Even upon My bondslaves, both men and women, I will in those days pour forth
of My Spirit," (Acts 2:17-18).
See also, "For I will pour out water on the thirsty land, and streams on the
dry ground; I will pour out My Spirit on your offspring, And My blessing on
your descendants," (Isaiah 44:3).
Peter states in Acts 2:38, "Repent, and let each of you be baptized in
the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall
receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Peter is clearly speaking of the
promise of God to grant the Holy Spirit in a new and better way. But is he
saying that people become saved by baptism in water or that baptism is part
of salvation? Not at all. Peter is simply speaking covenantally about the
covenant sign. Baptism!
Consider this proof, from Peter, that people are saved before baptism.
"While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all
those who were listening to the message. 45And all the circumcised believers
who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had
been poured out upon the Gentiles also. 46For they were hearing them
speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered, 47"Surely no
one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy
Spirit just as we did, can he?" 48And he ordered them to be baptized in the
name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days," (Acts
10:44-48).
Notice that Peter had been preaching the gospel and the Holy Spirit
fell upon the people. In verse 45 we see that "the gift of the Holy Spirit
had been poured out upon the Gentiles also." These people were saved. The
gift of the Holy Spirit was on the Gentiles and they were speaking in
tongues. This is significant because tongues is a gift given to believers,
see 1 Cor. 14:1-5. Also, unbelievers don't praise God. They can't because
praise to the true God is a deep spiritual matter that is foreign to the
unsaved (1 Cor. 2:14). Therefore, the ones in Acts 10:44-48 who are speaking
in tongues and praising God are definitely saved and they are saved before
they are baptized. This simply isn't an exception. It is a reality.
Conclusion
Acts 2:38 so closely ties repentance and baptism because it is
contextually covenant language and covenant concept. It is not stating that
you must be baptized in order to be saved. It is saying that baptism is the
complete and total covenantal identification with Christ in His death,
burial, and resurrection. It is not the covenant representation (baptism)
of what Christ did that saves us, but the reality of His sacrifice which we
receive by faith (Rom. 5:1; Gal. 3:8). That is why we can see in Acts
10:44-48 a group of people who are saved before they are baptized.
Baptism is not what saves. It is not part of salvation. It is
something someone does who is already saved. ________________
1. Active voice is "I hit the ball." Passive voice is "The ball hit me."
Middle voice is "I was hit by the ball." In active voice, "I" performed the
action. In passive voice, "I" received the action. In middle voice, "I"
did something to myself.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Allan Sims
> Get the facts on Steve Winter at:
>
> http://www.stevewinter.com/
> http://www.enteract.com/~sadams/winfaq.html
>
>
>
> Baptism and Acts 2:38
>
>
> Acts 2:38 is one of the more controversy verses in the Bible regarding
> baptism and whether or not it is the requirement for salvation. On the
> surface it seems to support it. But upon closer examination, we will see
> that it does not teach baptismal regeneration: that baptism saves.
> First of all, rarely is doctrine ever made from a single verse. We need
> to look at all of what God's words says about a subject in order to
> accurately understand what it teaches. I will briefly tackle of this verse
> in the following manner.
> Examination of the verse's syntax, grammar and structure.
> Examine other verses dealing with the forgiveness of sins.
> Examine the verse in its covenant context.
> Grammar and Structure of Acts 2:38
Frankly, that sounds like a preface to what you know to be a very hard
thing to sell.
> In Acts 2:38 the main verb is metanoesate (change mind), the aorist
> direct imperative (a command) of metanoeo which means to repent (change
> mind). This refers to that initial repentance of the sinner unto salvation.
> The verb translated "be baptized" is in the indirect passive imperative (a
> command to receive; hence, passive voice in Greek1) of baptizo, which does
> not give it the same direct command implied in "repent."
Would that not refer to the indirect action, "receive" as opposed to
the direct action of change mind. One is passive, the other active?
Are not both to still be done, though one is passive; and the other
overt?
This is quite lame-footed; and misleading. Consider that you have
said "baptism is the thing which we receive, in order to publicly
identify ourselves completely and totally with Christ as a
manifestation of the inward work God has done within us."
This is true. But, so is this.
2 Tim.
11. It is a faithful saying: For if we be dead with him, we shall
also live with him:
12. If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he
also will deny us:
13. If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny
himself.
He has chosen this method to have us identify ourselves with him. It
is by this outward sign of repentance that he has given us, that we
can be dead with him. But, if we refuse to do it, then will he deny
us.
Peace,
Allan Sims
Steven Buehler
> > First of all, rarely is doctrine ever made from a single verse. We need
> > to look at all of what God's words says about a subject in order to
> > accurately understand what it teaches. I will briefly tackle of this verse
> > in the following manner.
> > Examination of the verse's syntax, grammar and structure.
> > Examine other verses dealing with the forgiveness of sins.
> > Examine the verse in its covenant context.
> > Grammar and Structure of Acts 2:38
>
> Frankly, that sounds like a preface to what you know to be a very hard
> thing to sell.
No, he's only engaging in proper scriptural exegesis. "Any text removed
from its context is pretext for heresy."
SWB