eis

I agree with you. There are many concepts and practices that are justified by writings of men that are not found in Scripture. Another thing gained from these writings are terminologies e.g. "sacraments" that are never found in the Word.

Glad to know some are left who understand.

In Acts 2:39 "and to your children" indicates a promise to all future generations. In the rest of the Scriptures you posted you have to assume that there were children there. This is not a case for baptizing the infant or children.

Good point.

Don't get confused by what I understand others to purvey vs you. I understand what you are saying here and agree. Do you not read the others posts who say doing something is a work? We meaning everyone on this board? Or, everyone with whom you agree. (This reminds me of the times when 3 or more people are discussing something and someone else pipes in and says "What he is saying is..." Are you clarifying for all responders here?) There are many here who claim Romans 10:9-10 , 13, Acts 2:21, Eph 2:8-9 in the strictest sense saying that anything not faith is a work otherwise grace isn't grace. At least that's how I understand them. Do you wish to interpret for them as well? Are they, like you, saying faith and repentance is included in faith? (see below) In this case, "faith does not save; Jesus saves", I agree with you as have stated time and again, maybe not in those exact words. Christ alone saved us. Again, read the posts of others who appear to indicate that faith(in Christ) alone saves. There was one, at least who said no repentance was needed at all in other threads look at post #24 by OneLight who says you are saved then you repent. You said in post #18"Repentance is the response of faith to the gospel. Repentance happens the minute you acknowledge the gospel by faith. You cannot believe and not repent. It is impossible. Repentance is included in faith." That is your personal belief, I respect that. To me repentance is not included in "faith" proper, but more so an indicator of saving faith. Repentance will follow faith. Understood. And I agree. I haven't implied that at all. If so, show me where so that I won't make that mistake. So now you've judged me.

Yes, some feel that you do not have to repent. Others believe that you have to repent. I feel that you cannot be saved without repenting. Repenting is not a work, but it is a "doing". For those who are of faith only, nothing else, one is saved without repentance because then they would be doing something. Which shows that you have not really read the responses of the those you keep accusing of claiming that there is nothing to do to be saved. Either that, or you refuse to be honest about what we have said. Friend, I went back and re-read the posts. My summation fits. Please feel free to sum them up the way that you wish to spin it.

God is not "willing that any should perish, but that all would come to repentance" (2 Peter 3:9). He calls us through His word. I would not say He calls any individual in the sense that he picks you or me specifically.

Yes, in stating this I am agreeing with Scriptural mandate; Ro

Yes, in stating this I am agreeing with Scriptural mandate; Ro

No, they are not. If they were, then we would have to follow the early church's example on every point. The book of Acts is simply the story of how the early Church began. It is not an instruction manual. Its purpose is not to set up doctrine for all people for all time. It is nothing more than an historical, narrative account. So you say. Personal attacks do not strengthen you case or the false doctrine you love so deeply.

1. Because this is narrative passage, not an epistle. 2. Peter's audience is limited to Jews. He is not addressing the full body of Christ. 3. This is not a teaching passage. There are no doctrinal principles being espoused. 3. Peter is not teaching. He is exhorting. Doctrine is teaching, thus this is not a doctrinal passage. It is clarified. Water immersion is never connected to someone being placed into Christ. The ONLY person who baptizes us into Christ is the Holy Spirit. Water immersion is a testimony that one is in deed in Christ. Paul was considered a Christian BEFORE he was immersed in water. You are the one who cannot provide a sound biblical doctrinal defense of your position. A work produces a result or an effect. Faith is simiply the conduit by which salvation is received. That passage does not say that baptism brings forgiveness of sins. If it does, then just get immersed in water and you don't need Jesus at all. Your view borders on idolatry, as it makes water immersion the object of faith. The door is Christ. Unfortunately, you haver decided to place your faith in your own works and in water immersion and have opted to skip Christ. Our discussion remains circular. You consider yourself the authority, and me the idol worshiper. I disagree with your hermeneutic. Examples of how the church came to being are as doctrinal as epistles. I am at peace to disagree with you.

Yes, Baptism in water isn't for the forgiveness of sins. It's a public identification with Christ. John's Baptism was to prepare the way. It was an acknowledgment that one was a sinner and in need of the atoning Grace of God through Christ Jesus. Please don't take comments out of context. It's not polite and it's disingenuous. I said the repentance does and the profession of Christ in relation to the assertion that you believe that the washing does. Conviction of sins leads to a profession of sin which leads us to forgiveness through the atonement of Christ Jesus Blood. Peace, Dave Dave, I have no intention of being disingenuous or impolite, I apologize. Your comment was: "The Water itself has no power to wash away the sins. The repentance does and the profession of Christ, the bold public display, charecterizes the work that has been done." I agree that the "water" has no power in and of itself to wash away sins. I have made that very clear on multiple occasions. I focused on "the repentance does" because it stood out, but lets use your conjunctioal structure and examine this further: The repentance does and the profession of Christ, the bold public display, charecterizes the work that has been done." I am going to rest on repentance meaning just that; "the profession of Christ" to be confession; "the bold public display" is baptism. If I follow your thought, you are saying that repentance and confession wash away the sins. Baptism witnesses to everyone that you are already saved. Is this correct? As far as denying that baptism is for forgiveness of sins, then Peter was wrong? I fully understand the lack of agreement by "Greek scholars" in terms of what this means, but I invite you to take into account the post I made earlier here regarding the use of the Greek word eis.

And where is this noted? This is your deduction, but this one case was different than all conversions found in Acts. Was it a sign to Peter & those of circumcision? How about those in Samaria where Philip preached, but Peter and John had to go lay hands on those who had believed & baptized? What do you make of that? Alan, thank you for the offer. If it is so plain, then why is there disagreement? How about you, do you deny that baptism is for forgiveness of sins? If yes, explain why Peter said to repent and be baptized for forgiveness of sins.

The Lord baptized . . . no wait, that wasn't Him doing it! Question: were the people baptized by Jesus' disciples saved under the New Covenant when they were baptized then - before Jesus died and rose again? nebula, I knew there was indication somewhere about Him baptizing. Look at this: John 3:22-24 22 After these things Jesus and His disciples came into the land of Judea, and there He was spending time with them and baptizing. 23 And John also was baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there; and they were coming and were being baptized. NASB Now, if you follow through to John 4 you see that he makes a parenthetical correction. Just a minor point.