₦airaland Forum

esere826:
fair enough. I'll work with your belief. Now back to your verses which were:

(1)Act22:16 And now why do you delay? Get up, be baptized, and have your sins washed away, calling on his name.’

(2) "Then Peter said to them, Repent, and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38)

Looking at both verses it seems to indicate a process
baptise>> sins washed away >> then Holy Spirit gift received

I guess we all agree with this process. the challenge we all have is agreeing to what constitutes baptism

the original tradition seemed to indicate that water baptism was done inside water. I'm sure you and I both agree with this
Baptists and those after them believe that water baptism involves being dipped into water, while Catholics and some others believe that sprinkling of water over the head will suffice.

Now, let's push this further but carefully
when in a desert, with a bottle of water
- The Catholic approach suggests that a person can be baptised
- the Baptist approach suggests that a person cannot be baptized

when in a desert, with no water
- The Catholic approach suggests that a person cannot be baptised
- the Baptist approach suggests that a person cannot be baptized

Now, if for any reason it is true that water baptism is the start of the process for the remission of sin
then, he who is stuck in the desert and wants Jesus is on his own.... abi, is saliva also accepted in place of water?


After you've spared some thought on this, and given your view, I might push it further to shed some light on water baptism

Baptism is the ordinary way to enter the Christian life. However, if a person cannot be baptized, through no fault of theirs, God can still accept them into this life.

Similarly, I ask you who say that we are saved by faith and baptism of the spirit...

Are you saying all who never heard of Jesus before they died but did good according to the dictates of their conscience shall go to hell?

Goshen360:
Oga, be careful how you read into scriptures.....read those passages of Acts again from different translations and follow punctuations sir. The question you should be answering by yourself is:

Can scripture says we receive remission\forgiveness of sin in the blood of Christ and at the same time through (water) baptism? More like saying, can one eat through the mouth and at the same time through the ear? If the scripture is saying, we're saved by (water) baptism, then what is the purpose of finished works of Christ and has Christ come and died in vain? If the scripture is saying, we're saved by Grace through faith (in the finished works of Christ), then (water) baptism plays no role in our salvation....which one of them?

No need for epistles.

Acts 2:38 clearly says baptism is for remission of sin. Do you agree with that? Yes or no?

malvisguy212:
read the post very well, you will see it. Thank you.

Sorry, friend. The post is too vague for me.

Answering such a post will amount to waste of time.

I will answer when I find someone going straight to the point. Thanks.

malvisguy212:
am not against catholic, infacte I attend a catholic church sometimes (saint's Mary) as long as a catholic confessed Jesus as Lord and saviour, I don't have problems with them. But the points scholar made was a very good points.

Good points like?

I don't get his point.

Is he saying Catholics worship Mary as God?

Is he saying Catholics give her too much respect?

Is he saying the Apostles never gave her any recognition...or that they did but did not record it?

Is he saying that because the apostles, for example, did not record where they conducted a church wedding, then church weddings are sinful?

Is he saying that because the apostles never had or read a complete Bible like we have, then this compiled Bible is sinful.

Or is he just anti-Catholic?!

I think you should help me understand him...then I can answer adequately.

Scholar8200:
As regards the highlighted, are you saying all who get baptised are automatic believers? And would you opine that all who partake of the Lord's supper partake of it worthily or are made worthy by partaking when scripture clearly talks of those who partake unworthily and lists some of the consequences.

Pls go through the Acts of the Apostles and show me one person who was baptised before his confession of faith in Christ. Remission of sins takes place at that point when, after repentance, we believe with our heart, in the Redemption in His Blood.
Romans 3:25
25 whom God hath set forth to be a[b] propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past[/b], through the forbearance of God;

If we will remain within the scripture (and not squeeze in our own beliefs) this is what I believe reconciles both. Else why did Peter respond to their cry with the command Repent?

Baptism was an act carried out as a figure/type/symbol of the resultant spiritual events that occurred to the convert, as a response to his confessing with his mouth that which he believed with his heart.

Again, I answered your question and you continue to dodge mine. You asked me to reconcile the verses and I did.

I asked a question:

What do you say about the verses? Acts 2:38 is an error? Is baptism not for remission of sin?

Barnabaseloka:
You want to trap me with a 'yes' or a 'no'. Let us take it gradually to arrive at the best answer. This is b/c other passages are there to explain what Peter meant. Know that my answer will either contradict the scriptures or uphold them.
The first word Peter used was REPENT, before 'BE BAPTIZED'. Do you agree that 'REPENT' here also includes 'turn away from your sins and believe on the Lord Jesus' before baptism?

Yes. Baptism entails repentance, accepting Jesus, washing of water and the action of the Holy Spirit.

Baptism is not just pouring water on your head as footballers do on the pitch.

When you ask me questions, I answer them. When I ask you, you dodge them with all sorts of excuses because answering them will reveal the flaws in your belief.

I'm not trapping you. It's just a simple question.

Was Peter mistaken in saying Baptism is for remission of sin?

Or was he correct?

Barnabaseloka:
If one has believed in Christ Jesus but has not been baptised is he saved? And what about the believers in Acts that believed but were not baptised, were they saved?

If one has believed, but has not been baptized due to no fault of his, he is saved.

If one has believed in Jesus but has willfully rejected baptism due to his own fault, he has rejected Jesus' word and is not saved.

Which particular believers in Acts?

Do you think that saying something is necessary for salvation means God will not look at your circumstances?

Do you know that some people who have not even believed in Jesus will go to heaven?

It depends on their conscience.

Barnabaseloka:
Mistaken as in what? Make your post clearer. And I hope you read my post carefully before commenting?

Peter said clearly that Baptism is "for remission of sin?"

Was he mistaken?

esere826:
Before we go on to answering this question, please kindly confirm if you agree with me that there is no indication or proof that it was the Holy Spirit that said the statements that you ascribed to him.

This would be helpful in laying some solid foundation for our next line of assertions.
Remember that I have not yet attempted to make sense of what those scriptures say

Thanks

For me, there is an indication/proof that the Holy Spirit spoke through those men. The Catholic Church told me that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit to teach all truth.

Scholar8200:
Says? Kindly reconcile Acts 2:38 and Matthew 26:28. Feel free to use other scriptures to back up your position.

Very easy to reconcile.

Matt26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said to them, Repent, and let every one of you be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Both statements are true. One who is baptized has accepted Jesus (if he's up to the age of reason) and his blood.

One who rejects baptism has rejected Jesus (and his blood) who commanded us to be baptized.

What do you say?

That Acts2:38 is an error? Baptism is not for remission of sin?

Barnabaseloka:
Water baptism does not remit sin but only the blood of Jesus.

In Acts 2:38. Then Peter said to them, Repent, and let every one of you be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
41. Then those who gladly received his word were baptised..

Ordinarily here, one can understand it as water baptism being for the remission of sin, but it is not so. Before we make a conclusion on a passage, we ought to verify it from other passages, if not, we believe error.
Only the blood of Jesus remits (frees one from) sin by 'repenting from sin' and 'believing on Jesus'
Mt.26:28 For this is My blood of the new Covenant, which is shed for many for the REMISSION of sins

Acts 22:16 And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptised, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord. (KJV)
16. And now, why wait any longer? Get up and be baptised and have your sins washed away by praying to Him. (GB).
It is only by calling upon the name of the Lord, Jesus that makes a man free from sin and not water baptism.
Remember that Paul was reporting what happened to him. For better understanding, let us see the original story.
Acts 9:18. Immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he received his sight at once; and he arose and was baptised. Here, Paul had repented and had become a believer prior to his baptism. It was never his baptism that washed his sins away.

If water baptism remits sin, where these believers saved without it?
Acts 4:4 However, many of those who heard the word BELIEVED; and the number of the men came to the about five thousand.
Acts 13:12 Then the proconsul (governor) BELIEVED, when he saw what had been done, being astonished at the teaching of the Lord.
Acts 13:48 Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed for eternal life BELIEVED.
Acts 16:31 BELIEVE on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be SAVED, you and your household. They believed and got saved from their sins, before their water baptism.
Acts 17:4 And some of them were persuaded: and a great multitude of the devout Greeks; and not a few of the leading women, joined Paul and Silas.
12. Therefore many of them BELIEVED, and also not a few of the Greeks, prominent women as well as men.
34. However some men joined him and BELIEVED.....
Acts 18:8 Then Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, BELIEVED on the Lord with his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, BELIEVED, and were BAPTIZED. and so on.

What I want to show here is that not everyone that believed was baptized by the apostles. This is b/c the only things needed for one to be free from sin are 'repenting from sin' and 'believing on the Lord Jesus'. Water baptism is an OUTWARD show of what has happened to one's life INWARDLY.

You mean Peter must have been mistaken in Acts 2:38.

Scholar8200:
First are we agreed on the essence of the word,'figure' as used in the above passage and the meaning as attested by Hebrews 11:19 as a symbol or type of the real?

Yes

Scholar8200:
What remits sin? Let Jesus answer:
Matthew 26:28
28 for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

and that is because

And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
Hebrews 9:22

So Acts 2:38 is not scripture?

@muttleylaff and scholar8200

1Pet3:20 who in former times did not obey, when God waited patiently in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. 21 And baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you—not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Which baptism does the saving of the eight through water prefigure?

Water baptism or Holy Spirit baptism?

Scholar8200:
That was a Bible verse sire! Now because it contradicts your view, it is no longer Holy Spirit inspired, but story?!

Scholar8200:
The use of the word in the Holy Spirit inspired scripture, makes it worthy of our attention.

Does Baptism remit sin. Yes or no?

MuttleyLaff:
Affirmative.
Water baptism is a shadow of the real deal,

It is less powerful than the real baptism of the Holy Ghost and Fire.

Like tithing it is past its "best before" date but people still use tithing as well as water baptism for sentimental or ignorance reason.

God has no problem with both, as that's the level such presently are.

Am more concerned with people such as kei144 trying to twist John 3:5 has having to do with physical or literal water baptism, which obviously it doesn't.

So if someone has been baptized by the Holy Spirit, there is no need for water baptism?

Jesus mentions "water" and "spirit" yet you say kei444 is twisting.

When "water" is not explicitly mentioned you say it is not water baptism. When water is explicitly mentioned, you still say it is not water baptism.

Why?

@ Muttleylaff and scholar8200,

Can a child be baptized with the Holy Spirit and Fire?

MuttleyLaff:
Do you agree that there is no record of Paul ever being water baptised?

https://i57.tinypic.com/34sp9j4.gif
Look at you trying to give the bible a helping hand
Where is water baptism in Acts 2:38?
What I read is be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
this is in accordance with what John the Baptist brought attention to in Matthew 3:11,
The real deal, the more powerful stuff, which you took delight in and agreed with

Your point is that Baptism saves, but not water baptism.

What then is the use of water baptism?

Scholar8200:
Consider the quote i referred you to in Revelations 1:5
5 and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

Compare this with:

Your stories are too much.

Does Baptism remit sin. Yes or no?

disumusa:
mr bastard,loser,cannibalisin, gorrilla refuse to understand that omonoba family migrate and decend from oduduwa to entrone and extend their kindom to 1)benin, olu of warri,

Which "Oduduwa?" The one that Yoruba lying "scholars" said tripped and fell from heaven to earth?

Or the Bini Prince Ekaladerhan Imadoduwa?

Scholar8200:
Since Peter spoke the first reference, let's consider what he(by Inspiration) wrote in 1 Peter 3:20,21

20 which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

21The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

Here Peter points out that baptism is a figure/semblance of a deep spiritual occurrence-our salvation as a result of faith in the death and resurrection of Christ(after repentance).
Consider the amplified rendition of verse 21

21 And baptism, which is a figure [of their deliverance], does now also save you [from inward questionings and fears], not by the removing of outward body filth [bathing], but by [providing you with] the answer of a good and clear conscience (inward cleanness and peace) before God [because you are demonstrating what you believe to be yours] through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The same word figure is used here:
Hebrews 11:19
18 of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: 19 accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.

Isaac was not literally killed but the faith of Abraham that underlied the whole process was the focus of the writer here.

Baptism therefore is a figure, an outward demonstration of that which we believe is ours by faith.

Acts 22:16 was spoken to brother (one who had believed in and surrendered to the Lord Jesus and had already become a member of the family). He was here called to make a public demonstration of that which had already took place when he believed.

The question was not whether baptism is a figure or an alphabet sir.

The question was:

Do you believe Acts 2:38 and 22:16 when they say Water Baptism remits sin?

MuttleyLaff:
italo, I know why, where, when and how I got entangled in this matter with Kei144
but for you I'll leave you with this strongly instructive verse by the one who originally practised water baptism

Matthew 3:11
"I baptize you with water for repentance.
But after me comes one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry.
He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

Matthew 3:11
"I baptize with water those who repent of their sins and turn to God.
But someone is coming soon who is greater than I am--so much greater that I'm not worthy even to be his slave and carry his sandals.
He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.

Amen! I believe Matt 3:11 that Jesus baptizes with the Holy Spirit and fire.

Do you believe Acts 2:38 and 22:16 when they say Water Baptism remits sin?

esere826:
Acts 22:16
I thought this was Paul narrating what Ananias said to him? I read the verse again, and could not find anyone saying that the "the Holy Spirit said..."

Acts 2: 38
that was peter speaking, not the Holy Spirit
............................................................

Don't get me wrong
I'm not at this point of interjection into you train of thoughts arguing whether baptism remits sin or not
I'm just setting the record straight about who was speaking in those verses you quoted

we probably can take it on from there

So you believe Peter and Ananias were teaching error when they said baptism remits sin?

malvisguy212:
Good points, I would love it if any catholic brother respond to this post.

Let them change the title of the thread to "Catholic Bashing Thread."

Don't pretend you're here to prove that a woman is greater than Mary, then when we prove you wrong, you ignore it and jump to other countless issues at random.

If you ask me what exactly is that poster's grouse, to be honest, I don't know.

adsonstone:
Read on banishment in the Bini Empire....and even many other areas.

Banishment in the Bini empire entails loss of citizenship.

Bring evidence of the above.

adsonstone:
Well, from an English dictionary;

verb (used with object)
1. to expel from or relegate to a country or
place by authoritative decree; condemn
to ex[b]ile:

2. to compel to depart; send, drive, or put
away:[/b]

Synonyms: deportation, dismissal, expatriation, expulsion, ouster, removal


A deported man is not allowed to return or visit the country he was deported from.

An expelled student is not allowed to re-enroll in the same school, he looses his 'studentship'
and identity with the school.


http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/expulsion


Exile means to be away from one's home (i.e.
city, state or country), while either being
explicitly refused permission to return and/or being threatened with imprisonment or death upon return

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exile

But an ousted person can return. E.g Buhari was ousted in 1984, and he's back.

Same with a removed person.

ex·ile  (ĕg′zīl′, ĕk′sīl′)
n.
1.
a. The condition or period of being forced to live away from one's native country or home, especially as a punishment

"Frances Baard was banished when she was released from prison in 1966, after serving a five-year sentence. Baard had been a union organizer and ANC activist while working in a fruit canning factory in Port Elizabeth. But upon her release, she was banished to an area near Pretoria located far from her children and home. In her new location, Baard was placed in a small corrugated house and given a bed, two blankets, one pillow, two sheets, one table, one chair, and a bag of porridge. During her two-year banning period she worked at a local factory to support herself. After her banning order expired, it took Baard two more years to save enough money to return to Port Elizabeth to see her children (Baard and Schreiner)."

http://overcomingapartheid.msu.edu/sidebar.php?id=65-258-1&page=2

There is no mention of "total disconnection" or "loss of citizenship" anywhere.

adsonstone:
Evidence on accounts of wars?
You must be kidding.

You wouldn't even like me to delve into bringing details of series of the south eastern Aro-Ibibio Wars which lasted for almost 30 decades...or the Anglo-Aro wars which resulted in
serious casualties....or even the recent Igbo/Biafran war against Nigeria that almost tore Nigeria apart....or the series or Religious wars/violences/crises that occur frequently in Northern Nigeria.



There are many books you can read about wars in Yorubaland.

Read:
1. Robert Smith: Kingdom of the Yoruba
2. The History of the Yorubas by Samuel Johnson
3. Professor Akinjogbin - "Wars in Yorubaland,
1793 - 1893: An analytical categorization
4. S.A. Akintoye's "Revolution and Power
Politics.
5. J.F. Ade Ajayi and R. Smith: Yoruba Warfare

Here's a link to one
www.archive.org/stream/historyofyorubas00john/historyofyorubas00john_djvu.txt

I believe these books reveal a whole lot about wars, violences and conflicts in south western Nigeria and also present a form of comparison between the south west and other regions in Nigeria.

You and I both know that the above in no way proves that Yorubas fought less wars than anyone else.

You're just touting theories you're unsure of.

How many wars did Yorubas fight and how many did others fight?

If Yorubas are the most peaceful, then how are they the only ones that conquered territory up to Benin Republic, according to you?

adsonstone:
....and yes, Yorubas 'won't do anything' because of their friendly and accommodating nature as the Lagos State Govt. and Wikipedia describes, as long as the non-indigenes do not constitute nuisance.

By "won't do anything," I meant they are so lazy they don't like to do any constructive work or business. That is why an Hausa man from Kano will excel in selling tomatoes in Lagos...because the Yoruba sellers cannot compete. The Igbo man dominates most major markets in Lagos because the Yoruba man just wants to eat amala and drink alomo and impregnate the girl on the roadside and harass the Igbo man and extort him.

The Yoruba man doesn't go out of his homeland because his lazy attitude will make him not able to survive in Igbo land where everybody is hustling, for example.

adsonstone:
The nature of Lagos alone tells it all.
There are millions of Igbos, Hausas and many other tribes living there, you can't find such in several other states/regions.

Lagos was Federal Capital. That is what happens in Capital cities all over the world. I'm surprised that at your age, you don't know that.

As a matter of fact, it is because of the nature of Yorubas that Lagos became so dirty, rough and disorganized. Hence the movement to Abuja. Go to Abuja and see how the indegenes comport themselves in peace and civility. No Omo oniles, agberos, extreme dirtiness, no loud music inconveniencing others, no street parties blocking public roads, no Oba threatening people with drowning.

adsonstone:
"The Yorubas live in peace and harmony"
"There has never been a history of religious crisis among Yorubas unlike with Northerners"
"Yorubas are industrious, peace-loving and progressive, I am proud to be associated with them"


- Governor of Bauchi State, Mallam Isa Yuguda.
Speaking at the 2013 Yoruba Day celebration in Bauchi.
scannewsnigeria.com/featured-post/learn-from-yorubas-peaceful-co-existence-yuguda-tells-nigerians/

Mallam Yuguda is expected to say things like that at Yoruba day celebration. Do you want him to say "Yorubas are dirty and lazy. They are cowards. They give birth to children indiscriminately and leave them to wander without training. They are very promiscuous in marriage. Infact they abhor strong family units. They are hypocrites. They cannot be held by their word. They are too fetish and diabolical. All their lives are controlled by juju. They are more concerned about wearing nice expensive clothes to parties than giving their children a decent meal?"

adsonstone:
The bold; Hypocrisy and dishonesty at its peak.

No. If I say my mother is a witch, it is logical to believe me because I wouldn't ordinarily want to admit that. But if I say my mother is an angel...it is logical to take it with a pinch of salt because everybody would want to say so about their mother, even children of witches.

If you admit in court that you killed a man, you'll be jailed...but if you denied it, you'll not be acquitted.

So it's not hypocrisy and dishonesty. It's logic. I'm surprised that at your age, you need me to teach you that.

adsonstone:
You're simply envious of the description of Yorubas given by Lagos State Govt., Wikipedia and Mallam Isa Yuguda admist several other sources....and that's the reason for your doubts.

Like I said before, free up yourself.

I can show you dozens of Nigerians who have terrible things to say about Yorubas. Should we believe them?

There are people who say nice things about Bin Laden. Are you envious of them if you disagree?

It's you who needs to free up yourself from low reasoning capacity.

What is making you defensive? Mention what I said about Yorubas that is a lie!

MuttleyLaff:
John 4:2 although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples.

Please dont forget the below itemised
#1 show us in any of the Gospel accounts, where Jesus commanded physical or literal water baptism in order to be saved
#2 show us where Jesus ever, by doctrine or otherwise, publicly or personally told anyone to be baptized with physical or literal water
#2b show us where Jesus recommended or directly advised ritual washings with physical water or literal water for purification
(i.e. baptism a la John the Baptist)
#3 tell us how many people to your knowledge Jesus baptised with physical or literal water
#4 tell us how many people to your knowledge Paul baptised with physical or literal water and why not more than that number
#5 expound the poetic device in John 3:5

An italo Bonus #6 As St Augustine supported pugatory and prayer for the dead, do you as well believe in these too

Jesus' apostles baptized in his presence...and he did not rebuke them.

Acts 2:38 Jesus apostles baptized to remit sin, in obedience to his teaching.

That is enough.

Can you show me where Jesus said the apostles should write any letter...or compile any bible...or read it...or where Jesus went to Church?

Yet you do these things because you believe the apostles were doing his intention.

So with baptism.