Replies

**When you’ve done that, come back and tell us what you’ve learned (Heb. 6:1-3).**

Ok, off work, and have read as fast I can the ‘seven baptisms’ article.

I will begin at the last one just to show how wrong the Dr can be at times in his presentation:

His interpretation of ‘baptism for the dead’ is just as bad as the Mormon’s. Like them, he sees it as actually being baptized in place of someone that is dead. Only he sees it as wrong, whereas they see it as right.

The confusion is that they fail to see the context:

Paul starts chapter 1Cor. 15 teaching of Christ resurrection, and shifts gears at verse 12, telling of the doubters arguments about no resurrection, and the hopelessness if Christ is not. This continues through verse 19, then he diverts for a few verses to teach of the Lord’s resurrection, and the results of it. Then.....

...in verse 29, he continues the thought from 19. He is saying that, why be baptized into Christ if he is not risen, or his saints will not rise from the dead?

That’s the context, and Dr. Wittman missed it by a mile.

Now, back to the very beginning of his article:

His introduction is such a give away to his wordy goal: discount water baptism as a command from Jesus Christ and his apostles. Then he doesn’t even mention Acts 2:38 in his first reference, Acts 2:41,42.

He moves on to another passage he thinks will discount water baptism, Heb. 6:1,2.

Context:

Paul is writing to people that have already been born again, having obeyed the same instructions as given Acts 2:38. Need proof?...

Heb. 2:3,4 How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him; God bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will.

If that doesn’t sound like reference to the happenings in the Gospels and Acts, I don’t what does.

Heb. 6:1,2 shows the Acts 2:28 message is known to the reader. The point being made by the writer is that the foundation is laid, and doesn’t need to be laid again in THEIR lives.

When Wittman continues his introduction, complete with his own personal interpretations, he gets to Acts 2:38, only to leave a GAPING hole in it. Guess what’s missing?... Remission of sins!!

There wasn’t much point in continuing, but I moved on to ‘Baptism of Disciples or Water Baptism’. I sped down through the scripture reading, that gave various accounts of water baptism, then got to this.........confusion:

In the intro to that segment, I see an expected dodge:

“So effective was his preaching that the question was asked by those who heard, â€œO men! Brothers! What shall we do?â€ In addition to the brief answer to, â€œRepent at once and be baptized!â€ recorded by Luke, Peter exhorted and earnestly testified â€œwith more other wordsâ€ (Acts 2:40 APT).

The brief answer; I’ll say it was brief. No mention of remission of sins, or even the name of Jesus.

Then in his first of the seven step break down he uses, there is this:

“When Peter first preached The Gospel and opened the Kingdom to the Jews with the keys The Lord Jesus Christ had given to him,” (I agree with that part), “he preached The Gospel of Christ and the necessity of repentance for Salvation followed by the command to be baptized at once.” (maybe the APT tries to say that, but my KJV says, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.) “A few days later Peter had a little better understanding of The Gospel.”

That last line?!?.....Boy, the ‘Dr’ sure throws the Lord Jesus’ teaching skills under the bus, with that interpretation. Not only that, but by Wittman’s interpretation, Peter must have backslid in his instruction giving, for he commanded that Cornelius and his household be baptized in the name of the Lord, pronto. ( a side note: how many times did you need to be told how to turn on a microwave oven? Just making a point on how often instruction have to made in detail.)

I’m not going to spend half the night pointing out how inaccurate Dr Wittman’s piece is. I think that I’ve presented enough. But, for him to start out on a poorly built foundation was not good. I will go to your comments now:

..”by faith alone in the Jesus of the Bible alone, apart from the works of man.”

How can you claim faith and deny his command? It’s the power of his name in water baptism that remits sins. Being buried with Him gets the blood on you, or there could be no remission in it.

**You don’t interpret Acts 2:38 correctly nor apply it correctly,**

That’s your opinion.

**you neglect Martha’s salvation (Jn. 11:25-26).**

Jesus kept the Law through his entire walk to the cross, and reminded other Jews to do the same. I imagine that Martha, Mary, and Lazarus were good faithful Jews, in order to be in the Lord’s inner circle of close friends. The Lord told Martha to believe in him. Do you think that included his commandments?

The John 11 passage is only days or weeks from the crucifixion, and a couple of months from the 120 meeting in the upper room, and the Spirit poured out. In hours, about 3,000 had gladly been baptized. JMO, but I wouldn’t doubt that Martha and siblings were including in that big event. For one thing it was the feast of Pentecost. And Martha’s hometown wasn’t very far from Jerusalem.

**You neglect the salvation of the thief believing in Jesus Lord alone in his death torment (Lk. 23:43).**

He was under the Law. Not only was the testator not dead when that promise was made, the thief didn’t need the Holy Ghost, because that Jesus Christ was not yet glorified.

**You bring up (and mis-apply) Hebrews 9,**

Your opinion.

..**particularly the salvation of the army of faith heroes mentioned in 11.**

Able offered a better sacrifice by faith. I’m assuming Enoch did as well, for he pleased God. The list of obedience: built an ark, left Haran, pushed out a baby while quite old, etc. Do you think that any of the OT faithful discontinued to offer sacrifices pleasing to God?

..**but you fail to shaw a complete understanding of what purpose God uses the New Testament baptisms for.**

I think that I do a much better job than Dr Wittman.

(I’m not particularly impressed with his APT version either. Searched a bit but couldn’t find it.)

You told me to read and get back to you. I have.

Rightly divide the Word. Keep in context. Keep trying.

God guide you, I pray.

God guide you, I pray.

My dear Z, what you are missing out on is that The God has guided this poor man all his life, whenever he has permitted Him to do so; and in this case, into discipleship with a man who has studied the Bible daily for years, and who has faithfully and precisely translated the entire New Testament from the Koine Greek Majority/Byzantine textform as proposed by the scholars Robinson and Pierpont, and related it also to small differences between it and Scrivener's Received Text that backed the English Crown-authorised Version, In doing so, he has addressed not only the meaning of every word in its grammar and syntax setting, but also by the style of the author in the cultural and historical context within which it was written.

Do you think I will place your estimate of what these Scriptures say, above that of my teacher and other commentators like him, which also on my own studies your assumptions ring falsely against the better, Biblically-consistent testimony? The answer is, of course, no; and it is just a little unrealistic to think otherwise.

Now, as for the baptism with which Jesus initiated His chosen students into discipleship (including Judas Iscariot), and by which they baptized other followers as committed disciples, its purpose is not to complete a believer's salvation by finally dismissing his/her errors, but rather it is a ritual for the induction by the delegated authority of the Godhead--The Father, The Son, and The Holy Ghost--of professed followers of The Christ into an irreversible commitment to a lifetime of discipleship under such disciplers as have been appointed, themselves teaching and keeping watchfully secure and without change whatsoever Jesus as the Master, Messiach, and Lord commanded His Disciple/Apostles.

The Gospel promise is that in the moment that the Foreknowing God, Who examines the thoughts and intents of a human's heart, discerns that the decision of repentant faith is lasting, right then the human's past errors are removed from His knowledge and permanently forgotten, with justice He completely cleanses that individual's record from all sins, He judicially declares that person "Not Guilty," and frees him/her from the bondage of sin, to be securely kept and transformed by the ongoing renewal of the mind through having been given a new heart and the indwelling Spirit of The God.

In the uninspired AV translation of Acts 2:38, the proper rendering of the preposition "eis" in the minds of the first-century Greek speakers who heard it has the verbal meaning "on the basis of"; which is its use in the foundational sense, exactly as it is used in Matthew 12:41:

"The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here" (from the AV).

That is, sounding out the Greek,

"hoti metanoaysan eis to kayrygma Yona"

"because they repented on the basis of Jonah's proclamation as an herald"

So in that correct sense, the individuals professing repentance were to be permitted the induction rite of baptism, a public confession of having committed to be disciples of Christ, on the basis of their sins having already been forgiven and forgotten at the very moment one's belief in Him became real to him (and hence theoretically also to God), thus making them candidates for acceptance into the Company of the Committed, as fellow disciples, to join the assembly of brethren, to pray, to receive the doctrine of the apostles being in fellowship with them, and to break bread together in Remembrance, having received the Gospel with gladness of heart.

Of course, you know and have seen many individuals who have been overcome emotionally by forceful preaching, have been spiritually awakened to their pending condemnation, have grasped at the saying of a prayer of admitting their guilt, and been rushed into a water baptism without having had a true, lasting change of mind; and who, after these delirious effects have worn off in hours, days, or weeks simply gone back to their customary old ways, and not followed through. Like Judas, and Simon Magus, and Hymenaeus, and Alexander, and Diotrophes, these have swerved away and become vain janglers; or merely climbed back into their graves of spiritual death and become unresponsive; and all that after having been baptized, being wrongly told that baptism remits one's sins, and beenn defrauded such that a heavenly residence is now so secure that nothing else is required of them.

Make an account of that, if you can. Religious leaders defend their false presentations by calling that outcome "backsliding," but I simply do not believe their strategic deflection of responsibility for the phenomenon. These baptized people were simply not saved at all, IMO, but have in addition become gospel-hardened.

Now, Z, It is possible to continue to deal with the sticking points you brought up, but only if you can accept that your assumptions might be so wrong as to lead you into deep error, for my time is precious, and I am not interested in further adversarial debate on this issue.

With respect --