Acts 2:38 and the purpose of baptism
- Thread starter Jdorman
- Start date
You can't hop in the driver seat unless you have a driver license. AMEN.!! Cause if you get caught you get locked up.! Hallelujah, catch me in the Spirit right now.! You can't hop in Ephians,Philippians,etc until you have ALL of Acts. The Acts act out the rest of the book.! You got to have ALL of it. Or else you will get locked up ( hell & lake of fire ) AMEN.!! Got to have Acts first.
Acts 2:38 and the Purpose of Baptism
by
Jason Dulle
JasonDulle@yahoo.com
When it comes to determining how Acts 2:38 informs the doctrine of baptism, there are two theological controversies: the relationship of baptism to forgiveness, and the meaning of eis. Let me describe and respond to both in turn.1
The Relationship of Baptism to Forgiveness
Peter said to them, “Repent, and each one of you [humon] be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for [eis] the forgiveness [aphesin]
of your [humon] sins [hamartion], and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:38)
A plain reading of the English text gives one the impression that both repentance and baptism are for the forgiveness of sins. This sits well with Oneness Pentecostal soteriology (OPS), but not with traditional Protestant soteriology (TPS). TPS maintains that forgiveness, and hence salvation, is obtained when one believes on Christ and repents of sin.2 Baptism-while important-is not salvific, and hence cannot be for the purpose of forgiving sins.
So how does TPS interpret Acts 2:38, then? Advocates of TPS argue that an examination of the Greek grammar demonstrates that forgiveness of sins is connected only to repentance, not baptism.3 They correctly observe that "repent" is second person plural in form, while "baptized" is third person singular in form. Furthermore, the pronoun, humon, translated "your" in "for the forgiveness of your sins," is second person plural. Since pronouns must agree in number and person with the antecedent they modify, it is argued that forgiveness of sins is grammatically tied to "repent," not "baptized."
Building on the grammatical observation above, some propose the following logical argument: individual baptism (singular form) cannot bring about corporate forgives (plural humon), so the second humon must be modifying "repent" (plural form). Greg Koukl represents this line of argumentation:
In Acts 2, the command to repent is in the plural, as is the reference to those who receive the forgiveness of sins (i.e., "All of you repent so all of you can receive forgiveness"). The command to be baptized, however, is in the singular (i.e., "Each of you should be baptized"). This makes it clear that repentance, not baptism, leads to salvation, since an individual's baptism cannot cause the salvation of the entire group. Individual (singular) baptisms do not result in corporate (plural) salvation. As it turns out, then, the phrase "for the forgiveness of sins" modifies repentance, not baptism. A more precise rendering might be, "Let all of you repent so all of you can receive forgiveness, and then each who has should be baptized."4
How can the defender of OPS respond to these arguments? Several points should be made.
First, even if Acts 2:38 does not connect the forgiveness of sins with baptism, other passages do: 1 Peter 3:21, Acts 22:16, and Mark 16:16 (John 3:5 and Titus 3:5 also come to mind, but are not as clear as other verses).
Second, the argument hinges on a textual variant. In the Textus Receptus and Majority Text, the second humon is absent. If the Textus Receptus and Majority Text reflect the original wording at this point, the TPS argument crumbles into dust. Considering the fact that the entire case against the OPS interpretation of Acts 2:38 is grounded on this textual variant, TPS advocates need to demonstrate that the second humon is original to the text. For the sake of argument, however, I will assume the critical text is correct, and the second humon is original.
Third, the argument ignores a crucial point: the use of humon in "the forgiveness of your sins" is not the first appearance of humon in this passage. It is the second appearance. The first appears in let "each one of you be baptized." The antecedent to the first instance of the plural humon is clearly the singular verb, "baptized." Earlier I noted that pronouns must agree in number and person with the antecedent they modify. And yet here we have a plural pronoun modifying a singular verb. While an explanation for this anomaly is in order, it should not distract us from the larger point to be made: If the first instance of humon has a singular antecedent, why think the second instance of humon cannot have a singular antecedent? Indeed, the antecedent of a pronoun is usually the closest antecedent, and in this case, the closest antecedent of the second humon is the singular "baptized." It is accepted without controversy that the first instance of humon modifies a singular verb, so why should there be any controversy over the claim that the second instance of humon also modifies the same singular verb? Indeed, there is no grammatical argument to say Peter could do so in the first instance, but not in the second. The only grounds for objection are the theological presuppositions one brings to the text.
I have yet to explain this grammatical anomaly. Why does humon differ in number and person from its antecedent? The most likely explanation is that Peter used the plural pronoun throughout, regardless of the person and number of the verb, because everything he said was directed to all those present as a group. Of course one might wonder, then, why Peter switched from the second person plural when discussing repentance, to the third person singular when discussing baptism. One possible explanation is the Jewish perception of repentance as a corporate act, whereas baptism was viewed as an individual act. Whatever the reason for the shift in person and number, the fact remains that a plural pronoun modifies a singular verb in the beginning of the verse, and thus there is no reason to rule out the same phenomenon in the latter half of the verse when Peter discusses forgiveness of sins. The first instance is without controversy, and so should plural pronoun are used because everything Peter said applied to the entire group present.
Even earlier in Acts 2 we see an interplay of the singular and plural being used. Acts 2:6 reads, “When this sound occurred, a crowd gathered and was in confusion, because each one heard them speaking in his own language.” (NET) “Each one,” heis hekastos, is nominative singular masculine, corresponding precisely with “each one” in Acts 2:38. The verb “heard,” however, is third person plural. It would be just as fallacious to argue that the shift from singular to plural in Acts 2:6 means all the onlookers could not have heard the disciples speaking in tongues, as it is to argue that the shift from plural to singular in Acts 2:38 means baptism is not for the remission of sins.
The Meaning of Eis
Peter said to them, “Repent, and each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for [eis] the forgiveness [aphesin] of your sins [hamartion],
and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:38)
The Greek preposition eis can mean “for the purpose of,” or “with reference to,” among other things. How it is being used here in the phrase, eis aphesin ton hamartion (“for the forgiveness of sins) largely determines whether OPS or TPS is the correct soteriology. If eis means “for the purpose of,” then baptism is causally connected to forgiveness of sins alongside repentance, and TPS is undermined (which holds that baptism is not part of salvation). If eis means “with reference to,” then there is no reason to think baptism is causally connected to the forgiveness of sins (at least in this passage). Only the context can determine the meaning. I will argue that the context clearly favors the OPS interpretation, but before I do, I think it would be instructive to read what some TPS advocates have to say about the meaning of eis in this verse.
In his book, "Jesus Only" Churches, Cal Beisner wrote, "Grammatically, the command to be baptized is not connected with the promise of remission of sins. … [T]he grammatical connection is between repent and for the remission of your sins, not between be baptized and for the remission of your sins." (p. 58) He goes on to say, "[E]ven if water baptism is connected with remission of sins, the sense is not that baptism is in order to obtain but rather with reference to (i.e., as a sign of, or because of) the remission of our sins. In other words, eis would denote only that baptism is related somehow to the remission of sins; it would not tell us the nature of the relationship." (p. 59)
While Beisner thinks his grammatical argument shuts the door on the OPS interpretation, apparently for the sake of argument he considers how we should understand this verse if baptism is connected with the forgiveness of sins. If that were so, he insists eis should be understood to mean "in reference to." If eis is only connected to repentance, however, he is willing to define eis to mean "for the purpose of." This is an instance of one's theology dictating one's translation, rather than allowing the proper translation to dictate one's theology. As A.T. Robertson noted, "One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not."5 Beisner is doing just that. He is willing to admit a causal force to eis so long as it applies only to repentance, but if it is connected to baptism he rules a causal force out, and adopts a referential force instead. The reason for the shift is not grammatical or contextual, but theological in nature.
Some TPS advocates are more honest with the text. For example, Bauer’s lexicon cites Acts 2:38 as an example where eis donotes “purpose in order to.”
How should we understand eis, then; in a causal or referential way? Only the context can decide, and I argue that the context favors the causal interpretation. Peter had just finished proclaiming to the onlookers that they were responsible for crucifying their promised messiah. This realization convicted their heart of sin, prompting them to ask the disciples, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" They were not asking for an itinerary of the day's activities, but seeking to know what they could do to be forgiven of the sin they came to recognize they were guilty of. Peter's response is recorded in Acts 2:38. What were they to do? They were to repent and be baptized for the remission of their sins, and then receive the Spirit. If eis means "in reference to," we must conclude that Peter never answered their question. As Daniel Segraves wrote, "If eis does not mean at this point "in order to obtain," nothing in this verse is connected with the purpose of obtaining forgiveness, including repentance. In this case, would the command to repent mean something like "repent…with reference to the remission of your sins"? It is contextually evident from the general tenor of Peter's sermon that he is commanding his hearers to take specific action that will result in the forgiveness of their sins. At the point he made his commands, their sins were not yet forgiven." Only if eis expresses purpose would their question have been answered.
It is also noteworthy that the Greek phrase in question—eis aphesin ton hamartion—appears in Matthew 26:28, Mark 1:4, Luke 3:3, Luke 24:47, Acts 10:43, and Acts 26:18, in which all agree that eisis being used causally to refer to the effecting of forgiveness.6 Why think, then, that in this one instance it does not carry this force?
One might argue that eis does express purpose, but restrict its application to repentance based on the argument that the pronoun and the verb it modifies must be in grammatical agreement. As we saw earlier, however, this argument is not sound. Peter used a plural pronoun with a singular verb earlier in the verse, and thus there is no reason to think he is not doing the same thing later in the verse. Furthermore, if eis refers only to repentance, then Peter never provided a reason to be baptized. This seems highly unlikely.
For these reasons I think it is best to understand eis to express purpose, to view repentance and baptism together as being for the purpose of the forgiveness of sins, and hence to prefer OPS over TPS.
Footnotes
1. The substance of this article is highly indebted to the work of Daniel Segraves in "A Response to Calvin Beisner's Explanation of Acts 2:38"; available from http://danielsegraves.blogspot.com/2005/01/response-to-calvin-beisners.html; Internet; accessed 05 March 2008.
2. Receiving of the Spirit is also said to be required for salvation, but TPS usually holds that one receives the Spirit simultaneous with initial faith.
3. Not all TPS advocates argue this way. For example, Richard Longenecker writes, "Peter calls on his hearers to 'repent' (metanoesate). This word implies a complete change of heart and the confession of sin. With this he couples the called to 'be baptized' (baptistheto), thus linking both repentance and baptism with the forgiveness of sins." See Frank E. Gaebelein, gen ed., The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Vol. 9 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 283.
4. Greg Koukl, "Proof-texting Perils", Solid Ground, November-December 2007; available from http://www.str.org/site/DocServer/11-12_SG_2007.pdf?docID=2381; Internet; accessed 22 February 2008.
5. A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Volume III, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1930), 35-6.
6. These passages differ from Acts 2:38 only in that they lack the definite article (ton), but this is inconsequential to the meaning.
by
Jason Dulle
JasonDulle@yahoo.com
When it comes to determining how Acts 2:38 informs the doctrine of baptism, there are two theological controversies: the relationship of baptism to forgiveness, and the meaning of eis. Let me describe and respond to both in turn.1
The Relationship of Baptism to Forgiveness
Peter said to them, “Repent, and each one of you [humon] be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for [eis] the forgiveness [aphesin]
of your [humon] sins [hamartion], and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:38)
A plain reading of the English text gives one the impression that both repentance and baptism are for the forgiveness of sins. This sits well with Oneness Pentecostal soteriology (OPS), but not with traditional Protestant soteriology (TPS). TPS maintains that forgiveness, and hence salvation, is obtained when one believes on Christ and repents of sin.2 Baptism-while important-is not salvific, and hence cannot be for the purpose of forgiving sins.
So how does TPS interpret Acts 2:38, then? Advocates of TPS argue that an examination of the Greek grammar demonstrates that forgiveness of sins is connected only to repentance, not baptism.3 They correctly observe that "repent" is second person plural in form, while "baptized" is third person singular in form. Furthermore, the pronoun, humon, translated "your" in "for the forgiveness of your sins," is second person plural. Since pronouns must agree in number and person with the antecedent they modify, it is argued that forgiveness of sins is grammatically tied to "repent," not "baptized."
Building on the grammatical observation above, some propose the following logical argument: individual baptism (singular form) cannot bring about corporate forgives (plural humon), so the second humon must be modifying "repent" (plural form). Greg Koukl represents this line of argumentation:
In Acts 2, the command to repent is in the plural, as is the reference to those who receive the forgiveness of sins (i.e., "All of you repent so all of you can receive forgiveness"). The command to be baptized, however, is in the singular (i.e., "Each of you should be baptized"). This makes it clear that repentance, not baptism, leads to salvation, since an individual's baptism cannot cause the salvation of the entire group. Individual (singular) baptisms do not result in corporate (plural) salvation. As it turns out, then, the phrase "for the forgiveness of sins" modifies repentance, not baptism. A more precise rendering might be, "Let all of you repent so all of you can receive forgiveness, and then each who has should be baptized."4
How can the defender of OPS respond to these arguments? Several points should be made.
First, even if Acts 2:38 does not connect the forgiveness of sins with baptism, other passages do: 1 Peter 3:21, Acts 22:16, and Mark 16:16 (John 3:5 and Titus 3:5 also come to mind, but are not as clear as other verses).
Second, the argument hinges on a textual variant. In the Textus Receptus and Majority Text, the second humon is absent. If the Textus Receptus and Majority Text reflect the original wording at this point, the TPS argument crumbles into dust. Considering the fact that the entire case against the OPS interpretation of Acts 2:38 is grounded on this textual variant, TPS advocates need to demonstrate that the second humon is original to the text. For the sake of argument, however, I will assume the critical text is correct, and the second humon is original.
Third, the argument ignores a crucial point: the use of humon in "the forgiveness of your sins" is not the first appearance of humon in this passage. It is the second appearance. The first appears in let "each one of you be baptized." The antecedent to the first instance of the plural humon is clearly the singular verb, "baptized." Earlier I noted that pronouns must agree in number and person with the antecedent they modify. And yet here we have a plural pronoun modifying a singular verb. While an explanation for this anomaly is in order, it should not distract us from the larger point to be made: If the first instance of humon has a singular antecedent, why think the second instance of humon cannot have a singular antecedent? Indeed, the antecedent of a pronoun is usually the closest antecedent, and in this case, the closest antecedent of the second humon is the singular "baptized." It is accepted without controversy that the first instance of humon modifies a singular verb, so why should there be any controversy over the claim that the second instance of humon also modifies the same singular verb? Indeed, there is no grammatical argument to say Peter could do so in the first instance, but not in the second. The only grounds for objection are the theological presuppositions one brings to the text.
I have yet to explain this grammatical anomaly. Why does humon differ in number and person from its antecedent? The most likely explanation is that Peter used the plural pronoun throughout, regardless of the person and number of the verb, because everything he said was directed to all those present as a group. Of course one might wonder, then, why Peter switched from the second person plural when discussing repentance, to the third person singular when discussing baptism. One possible explanation is the Jewish perception of repentance as a corporate act, whereas baptism was viewed as an individual act. Whatever the reason for the shift in person and number, the fact remains that a plural pronoun modifies a singular verb in the beginning of the verse, and thus there is no reason to rule out the same phenomenon in the latter half of the verse when Peter discusses forgiveness of sins. The first instance is without controversy, and so should plural pronoun are used because everything Peter said applied to the entire group present.
Even earlier in Acts 2 we see an interplay of the singular and plural being used. Acts 2:6 reads, “When this sound occurred, a crowd gathered and was in confusion, because each one heard them speaking in his own language.” (NET) “Each one,” heis hekastos, is nominative singular masculine, corresponding precisely with “each one” in Acts 2:38. The verb “heard,” however, is third person plural. It would be just as fallacious to argue that the shift from singular to plural in Acts 2:6 means all the onlookers could not have heard the disciples speaking in tongues, as it is to argue that the shift from plural to singular in Acts 2:38 means baptism is not for the remission of sins.
The Meaning of Eis
Peter said to them, “Repent, and each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for [eis] the forgiveness [aphesin] of your sins [hamartion],
and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:38)
The Greek preposition eis can mean “for the purpose of,” or “with reference to,” among other things. How it is being used here in the phrase, eis aphesin ton hamartion (“for the forgiveness of sins) largely determines whether OPS or TPS is the correct soteriology. If eis means “for the purpose of,” then baptism is causally connected to forgiveness of sins alongside repentance, and TPS is undermined (which holds that baptism is not part of salvation). If eis means “with reference to,” then there is no reason to think baptism is causally connected to the forgiveness of sins (at least in this passage). Only the context can determine the meaning. I will argue that the context clearly favors the OPS interpretation, but before I do, I think it would be instructive to read what some TPS advocates have to say about the meaning of eis in this verse.
In his book, "Jesus Only" Churches, Cal Beisner wrote, "Grammatically, the command to be baptized is not connected with the promise of remission of sins. … [T]he grammatical connection is between repent and for the remission of your sins, not between be baptized and for the remission of your sins." (p. 58) He goes on to say, "[E]ven if water baptism is connected with remission of sins, the sense is not that baptism is in order to obtain but rather with reference to (i.e., as a sign of, or because of) the remission of our sins. In other words, eis would denote only that baptism is related somehow to the remission of sins; it would not tell us the nature of the relationship." (p. 59)
While Beisner thinks his grammatical argument shuts the door on the OPS interpretation, apparently for the sake of argument he considers how we should understand this verse if baptism is connected with the forgiveness of sins. If that were so, he insists eis should be understood to mean "in reference to." If eis is only connected to repentance, however, he is willing to define eis to mean "for the purpose of." This is an instance of one's theology dictating one's translation, rather than allowing the proper translation to dictate one's theology. As A.T. Robertson noted, "One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not."5 Beisner is doing just that. He is willing to admit a causal force to eis so long as it applies only to repentance, but if it is connected to baptism he rules a causal force out, and adopts a referential force instead. The reason for the shift is not grammatical or contextual, but theological in nature.
Some TPS advocates are more honest with the text. For example, Bauer’s lexicon cites Acts 2:38 as an example where eis donotes “purpose in order to.”
How should we understand eis, then; in a causal or referential way? Only the context can decide, and I argue that the context favors the causal interpretation. Peter had just finished proclaiming to the onlookers that they were responsible for crucifying their promised messiah. This realization convicted their heart of sin, prompting them to ask the disciples, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" They were not asking for an itinerary of the day's activities, but seeking to know what they could do to be forgiven of the sin they came to recognize they were guilty of. Peter's response is recorded in Acts 2:38. What were they to do? They were to repent and be baptized for the remission of their sins, and then receive the Spirit. If eis means "in reference to," we must conclude that Peter never answered their question. As Daniel Segraves wrote, "If eis does not mean at this point "in order to obtain," nothing in this verse is connected with the purpose of obtaining forgiveness, including repentance. In this case, would the command to repent mean something like "repent…with reference to the remission of your sins"? It is contextually evident from the general tenor of Peter's sermon that he is commanding his hearers to take specific action that will result in the forgiveness of their sins. At the point he made his commands, their sins were not yet forgiven." Only if eis expresses purpose would their question have been answered.
It is also noteworthy that the Greek phrase in question—eis aphesin ton hamartion—appears in Matthew 26:28, Mark 1:4, Luke 3:3, Luke 24:47, Acts 10:43, and Acts 26:18, in which all agree that eisis being used causally to refer to the effecting of forgiveness.6 Why think, then, that in this one instance it does not carry this force?
One might argue that eis does express purpose, but restrict its application to repentance based on the argument that the pronoun and the verb it modifies must be in grammatical agreement. As we saw earlier, however, this argument is not sound. Peter used a plural pronoun with a singular verb earlier in the verse, and thus there is no reason to think he is not doing the same thing later in the verse. Furthermore, if eis refers only to repentance, then Peter never provided a reason to be baptized. This seems highly unlikely.
For these reasons I think it is best to understand eis to express purpose, to view repentance and baptism together as being for the purpose of the forgiveness of sins, and hence to prefer OPS over TPS.
Footnotes
1. The substance of this article is highly indebted to the work of Daniel Segraves in "A Response to Calvin Beisner's Explanation of Acts 2:38"; available from http://danielsegraves.blogspot.com/2005/01/response-to-calvin-beisners.html; Internet; accessed 05 March 2008.
2. Receiving of the Spirit is also said to be required for salvation, but TPS usually holds that one receives the Spirit simultaneous with initial faith.
3. Not all TPS advocates argue this way. For example, Richard Longenecker writes, "Peter calls on his hearers to 'repent' (metanoesate). This word implies a complete change of heart and the confession of sin. With this he couples the called to 'be baptized' (baptistheto), thus linking both repentance and baptism with the forgiveness of sins." See Frank E. Gaebelein, gen ed., The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Vol. 9 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 283.
4. Greg Koukl, "Proof-texting Perils", Solid Ground, November-December 2007; available from http://www.str.org/site/DocServer/11-12_SG_2007.pdf?docID=2381; Internet; accessed 22 February 2008.
5. A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Volume III, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1930), 35-6.
6. These passages differ from Acts 2:38 only in that they lack the definite article (ton), but this is inconsequential to the meaning.
Right Divider
Body part
So you really have NO idea why Jesus said those things? I'm not surprised.
You are one confused person.
lol
"Verse 18 does not mean we should deliberately handle poisonous snakes as a test of faith. An example from Satan's temptation of Christ makes this clear. Satan quoted an Old Testament promise of protection and demanded that Jesus prove the truth of Scripture and His own righteousness by attempting to commit suicide (Matthew 4:6). Jesus answered, "It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God" (Matthew 4:7). We should not try to force God to act in a certain way, and we should not deliberately ask for trouble to see what God will do. We cannot prove our faith or His Word by trying to harm ourselves, for that is contrary to His will.
Rightly understood, Mark 16:18 promises protection in case of accidents. If a child of God is accidentally bitten by a serpent, he can trust God for deliverance. This harmonizes well with the rest of verse 18, which tells us we can trust God in cases of sickness or accidental poisoning. As an example, when Paul was accidentally bitten by a deadly viper, he calmly shook it off and was miraculously unharmed (Acts 28:1-6).
It is probable that Mark 16:18 also has a spiritual application, promising the believer power over demonic powers. From Genesis to Revelation the Bible characterizes the devil as a serpent. When Jesus gave seventy of His disciples power over evil spirits, He said, "Behold I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you" (Luke 10:19). It is logical to conclude that Mark 16:18 promises both protection against the effect of snake bites and victory in battle against spiritual foes. At the same time, the promise does not instruct us to tempt God by deliberately handling snakes as a test of faith. " (David K Bernard)
Yeah, he's young and ignorant.
Everything there has an application for today, just needs to be understood correctly.
"Verse 18 does not mean we should deliberately handle poisonous snakes as a test of faith. An example from Satan's temptation of Christ makes this clear. Satan quoted an Old Testament promise of protection and demanded that Jesus prove the truth of Scripture and His own righteousness by attempting to commit suicide (Matthew 4:6). Jesus answered, "It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God" (Matthew 4:7). We should not try to force God to act in a certain way, and we should not deliberately ask for trouble to see what God will do. We cannot prove our faith or His Word by trying to harm ourselves, for that is contrary to His will.
Rightly understood, Mark 16:18 promises protection in case of accidents. If a child of God is accidentally bitten by a serpent, he can trust God for deliverance. This harmonizes well with the rest of verse 18, which tells us we can trust God in cases of sickness or accidental poisoning. As an example, when Paul was accidentally bitten by a deadly viper, he calmly shook it off and was miraculously unharmed (Acts 28:1-6).
It is probable that Mark 16:18 also has a spiritual application, promising the believer power over demonic powers. From Genesis to Revelation the Bible characterizes the devil as a serpent. When Jesus gave seventy of His disciples power over evil spirits, He said, "Behold I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you" (Luke 10:19). It is logical to conclude that Mark 16:18 promises both protection against the effect of snake bites and victory in battle against spiritual foes. At the same time, the promise does not instruct us to tempt God by deliberately handling snakes as a test of faith. " (David K Bernard)
Right Divider
Body part
I never said any such thing. Are you another come here to make false accusations?
Perhaps you should find someone that believes what you are falsely accusing me of and ask them.
Paul was different. He was NOT part of the ones referred to in Mark 16.
Paul even performed "special" miracles.
Acts 19:11-12 (AKJV/PCE)
(19:11) And God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul: (19:12) So that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them.
But later in his ministry he had to leave his friends sick and recommended wine as medicine.
1Tim 5:23 (AKJV/PCE)
(5:23) Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities.
2Tim 4:20 (AKJV/PCE)
(4:20) Erastus abode at Corinth: but Trophimus have I left at Miletum sick.
It is probable that you do not understand the full picture of the mission what Jesus was sending the TWELVE apostles that will judge the TWELVE tribes of ISRAEL upon.
Right Divider
Body part
Duplicate posts are a waste of everyone's time and this sites space.
Bro, I meant to put this reply to the person you replied too. No accusations meant. Also the point of the post is simply to show that we can still apply the verse to us today without having to act on it in "crazy" ways like "handle snakes with a shotgun" lol
Sorry man! I just replied to the wrong person by accident.
Right Divider
Body part
Sorry bro, how could I have known that you weren't replying to me when you replied to me?
Yeah, my bad
Where are those twelve tribes today? What happened to them?
Right Divider
Body part
Jas 1:1 (AKJV/PCE)
(1:1) James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.
They are fallen and will be restored when the time is right per the LORD.
Matt 24:29-35 (AKJV/PCE)
(24:29) ¶ Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: (24:30) And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. (24:31) And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. (24:32) Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer [is] nigh: (24:33) So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, [even] at the doors. (24:34) Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. (24:35) Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
Isa 11:10-12 (AKJV/PCE)
(11:10) ¶ And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious. (11:11) And it shall come to pass in that day, [that] the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea. (11:12) And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.
Isa 11:10-12 (AKJV/PCE)
(11:10) ¶ And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious. (11:11) And it shall come to pass in that day, [that] the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea. (11:12) And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
The baptism of Acts 2:38, when it was in order, was for the purpose of cleansing those who were already saved to bring them back to "fellowship" with the Lord. It served the same purpose as the "confession" of sin which the Apostle John speaks of here:
Here John is saying that if we "confess" our sins then we will be cleansed from the things which interrupt our "fellowship" with God. The baptism of repentance was also in regard to confessing sins:
All Christians receive the forgiveness of sins when they believe:
"To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins" (Acts 10:43).
When a person believes he is baptized into the body of Christ by one Spirit and are created in "righteousness and true holiness" (Eph.4:24).
That refers to a Christian's "position" in Christ but our "walk" is another matter. In our "walk" sin separates us from our fellowship with God:
" But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear" (Isa.59:2).
So today when we confess our sins those sins are forgiven us but that forgiveness is not in regard to salvation.
When water baptism was in order those who submitted to the rite of water baptism had their sins forgiven but that forgiveness was not in regard to salvation.
"This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth...If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 Jn.1:5-6, 9).
Here John is saying that if we "confess" our sins then we will be cleansed from the things which interrupt our "fellowship" with God. The baptism of repentance was also in regard to confessing sins:
"In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea, And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand...Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan, And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins" (Mt.3:1-2,5-6).
All Christians receive the forgiveness of sins when they believe:
"To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins" (Acts 10:43).
When a person believes he is baptized into the body of Christ by one Spirit and are created in "righteousness and true holiness" (Eph.4:24).
That refers to a Christian's "position" in Christ but our "walk" is another matter. In our "walk" sin separates us from our fellowship with God:
" But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear" (Isa.59:2).
So today when we confess our sins those sins are forgiven us but that forgiveness is not in regard to salvation.
When water baptism was in order those who submitted to the rite of water baptism had their sins forgiven but that forgiveness was not in regard to salvation.
You evidently didn't understand my question. If the twelve tribes are to be gathered together they must be someplace to be gathered from.
Isaiah's statement indicates both Israel and Judah will be gathered together. It's easy to identify Judahites but where will the other tribes be gathered from, what nations do they represent? Where are they?
Yet you can't prove me wrong with the Scriptures. You need an other man/woman to answer your questions. AHH glory to God.!! I know more about the Scriptures then you know about yourself. I will cut you down to flea size with scriptures, proving my point.! You and that disrespectful Grosnick. Nobody on this Site can prove me wrong NONE.!! That's how much I know God.! I can boast in my Father cause I talk to Him. AHH Hallelujah, I can boast about Him cause I was born of Him, HOILNESS.. I can boast about Him. You can't you need commentary, AHH GLORY HALLELUJAH.!! You don't talk to Him because you search the internet. I SEARCH GOD SIR.!!!