Replies

>>I’ve given you a LOT to ignore it seems.<<

No, you have given me a lot that you don't seem to rightly understand.

>>I trust that the tranlators used ‘for’ because it is the best suitable word for the passage.<<

Well, the same Greek word is used here. Matthew 3:10 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

Did the fire exist before the tree was cast into the fire? Yes it did.

and here:

Matthew 2:13 And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.

Did Egypt exist before they took Jesus into Egypt? Yes it did.

That Greek word is used 1774 times in the New Testament and nearly every time is translated into. So being consistent let's see it here:

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ ~~for~~ into the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Did the remission of sins exist before we are baptised into it? Yes it did.

The word is a Preposition, NOT a verb. Surely you understand the difference.

**No, you have given me a lot that you don’t seem to rightly understand.**

That’s a good of a dodge as any.

**The word is a Preposition, NOT a verb. Surely you understand the difference.**

You can’t see the forest for the trees.
You can’t see the forest into the trees.

Same result. (a suggestion: you could come back and read those two lines again after reading the rest of this post)

Baptism is the verb, but you seem to want to interpret when it means water baptism, or not.

I’ve proven to you and others that Paul water baptized plenty of folks. You, and those like minded, readily jump on 1Cor. 1:17 to say Paul didn’t water baptize, or at least saw it as unecessary.

Which is a diss on Matt. 28:19, Mark 16:16, and the various accounts of souls being baptized by God’s messengers.

Look at the response to Peter preaching to the unsaved souls in Acts 2:37 (keeping in mind that these folks had just been thoroughly taught who Jesus Christ is).

“Now when they HEARD this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethern, what shall we do?”

Now you are faced with Acts 2;38, and MUST PROVE that ‘baptism’ in not in water, to satisfy your ‘no works’ doctrine (when it is not ‘our own works’ at all, but obedience to God. Rom. 6:17).

The problem with that is the cases in Acts that directly mention water baptism in the name of Jesus, or make it very obvious by the actions taking place, such as:

1. The Samaritans believed, and then were baptized. 8:12
2. Simon the sorcerer believed, and then was baptized. 8:13
3. The eunuch believed, and then was baptized. 8:36-38
4. Saul/Paul believed, and ‘arose, and was baptized’. 9:18. (Second account: ‘arise, and be baptized’ 22:16. He had to arise. Why?)
5. Cornelius and household believed, received the Holy Ghost, and were then baptized...in water...in the name of the Lord. 10:46-48
6. Crispus, and others of Corinth, believed and were baptized. 18:8 (I have already proved earlier that Paul water baptized Crispus and others by the 1Cor. 12-17 passage).

As for Cornelius and his household, in Acts 11:17 Peter is relating the story in the way it progressed, and WHY he HAD to baptize them.

Foreasmuch THEN (past tense)....as God GAVE (past tense)...them the like gift.....what was I, that I COULD WITHSTAND (present/future tense).

You, and those like minded, are determined to deny that certain instances of baptism, noted in Acts, is water, if water is not specifically mentioned. If you were a truck driver, and I the dispatcher, my patience would be tested by your behavior: By your repeatedly requiring word for word directions to a place you had already been to several times.

When King Josiah read the ‘words of the book of the covenant’ to the people, the scriptures don’t go back and repeat it all. That’s because, by that point in reading the Bible, one knows where to find it in detail. The DETAILED instructions of the new birth are easily found in the NT, if one WANTS to find them.