Fundamentalism and Acts 2

[TommyWommy]

I heard a Fundamentalist preacher teaching that “Repent and be baptized FOR the forgiveness of sins” is like the phrase “You can’t see the forest FOR the trees.” In other words, the word “for” means “because of” or “due to.” Hence, “Repent and be baptized because of the remission of sins.” In other words, get saved, and after you get saved get baptized to show that your sins have previously been forgiven. This was his argument against baptismal regeneration. (Along with “born again of water and of spirit” meaning “born from amniotic fluid and then of the spirit”).

Is this a typical Fundamentalist interpretation, or an anomaly?

Additionally, he claimed that Peter used his “keys” when he preached at Pentecost and “unlocked” the secrets of the gospel for his listeners. Apparently, after that he didn’t need the keys anymore.

 

[JustaServant]

Fundamentalist preachers like to use “folksy” proverbs or interpretations that appear on the surface to make sense, but as one dares to delve deeper the less sense it makes. One of the favorite ones when I walked among them was “a person can be so Heavenly-minded. they’re no earthly good!!” or the reverse of it. Guarenteed to generate “Amens” from the crowd, but what the heck does it mean?
Fundamentalism claims belief and dependency on the Scriptures. But it appears to be more influenced by a kind of “Oral Tradition”.
Strange as it may seem, fundamentalists use exactly what they condemn Catholics for.
Sermons and interpretations are shared, sometimes word for word. Some are published or they pass around (and sell) tapes and pamphlets. Many graduates of a particular Bible College memorize the sermons of its founder word for word. They attend conferences where they hear the leaders set an agenda for them. Bible study is selective, to serve the purpose of a sermon. Memorization replaces scholarly inquiry. Verses and texts are simply used to apply to a situation or a sermon.

 

[Georgia]

When you discuss the Bible with a Fundamentalist, you should remember that there is yet another Bible in the discussion, the one in that person’s head. He remembers and quotes what has been emphasized by the preachers to whom he has listened. It becomes a matter of what they call being convicted. By that, they mean that God has shown them a particular truth and that they are now convicted of that being a fact. Yes, I know the language is a little odd to the Catholic reader, but that is how it is expressed.

A friend once told me that many have a personal preference, find a verse to support it, and therein lies what he thinks is the will of God. If so, that person is his own private authority, answerable to no human.

 

[Cat_Herder]

I heard a Fundamentalist preacher teaching that “Repent and be baptized FOR the forgiveness of sins” is like the phrase “You can’t see the forest FOR the trees.” In other words, the word “for” means “because of” or “due to.” Hence, “Repent and be baptized because of the remission of sins.” In other words, get saved, and after you get saved get baptized to show that your sins have previously been forgiven. This was his argument against baptismal regeneration. (Along with “born again of water and of spirit” meaning “born from amniotic fluid and then of the spirit”).

Is this a typical Fundamentalist interpretation, or an anomaly?

Additionally, he claimed that Peter used his “keys” when he preached at Pentecost and “unlocked” the secrets of the gospel for his listeners. Apparently, after that he didn’t need the keys anymore.

Actually the use of the word “for” in that saying means “instead of.” If I cannot see the forest for the trees, that means I am so caught up in the trees that I can’t tell that they compose a forest. Hence I cannot see the forest instead of the trees.

Hence we have: Repent and be baptized instead of the remission of sins. Repent and be baptized instead of going to the Temple and offering what the Law of Moses prescribed. That demolishes the fundamentalist’s position.

The “amniotic fluid” argument is laughable and violates sola scriptura. Nowhere in the Bible is amniotic fluid (or the Sinner’s Prayer) mentioned.

 

[thomasf]

The saying is ‘can’t see the forest through the trees’. There’s no for in there, and none of that argument makes sense. It’s an idiom that means the person is too focused on a small aspect of an issue, and can’t see the bigger picture. Kinda like someone focusing on the word ‘for’ in what it says in Acts instead of what Peter is actually saying about baptism.

Peter says in Acts ‘repent and be baptized for the remission of sins’. It means exactly that, baptism is the normal method to join the body of Christ, and baptism washes away the stain of original sin and all sins you commit, thanks to Jesus’ sacrifice. It’s as simple as that.

 

[guanophore]

I heard a Fundamentalist preacher teaching that “Repent and be baptized FOR the forgiveness of sins” is like the phrase “You can’t see the forest FOR the trees.” In other words, the word “for” means “because of” or “due to.” Hence, “Repent and be baptized because of the remission of sins.” In other words, get saved, and after you get saved get baptized to show that your sins have previously been forgiven. This was his argument against baptismal regeneration. (Along with “born again of water and of spirit” meaning “born from amniotic fluid and then of the spirit”).

Is this a typical Fundamentalist interpretation, or an anomaly?

Additionally, he claimed that Peter used his “keys” when he preached at Pentecost and “unlocked” the secrets of the gospel for his listeners. Apparently, after that he didn’t need the keys anymore.

Yes, these are typical fundamentalist ideas. They were created to deny the sacramental life and the authority of the CC.

 

[Todd_Easton]

And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’ (Acts 22:16)
The word order in the verse above from Acts suggests that the washing away (forgiveness) of sins occurs at or after baptism.

Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. (Romans 6:3-4)
The word order in the verse above from Romans suggests that the our walk in newness of life begins at or after baptism.

 

[guanophore]

And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’ (Acts 22:16)
The word order in the verse above from Acts suggests that the washing away (forgiveness) of sins occurs at or after baptism.

Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. (Romans 6:3-4)
The word order in the verse above from Romans suggests that the our walk in newness of life begins at or after baptism.

This is one of the doctrines that was changed as a result of Sola Scriptura. Believers could not find any scriptural evidence of baptizing infants, so this apostolic practice was rejected.

They were also eager to reject the sacramental power in the Church, so denied that any sacraments conveyed grace.

 

[TommyWommy]

The saying is ‘can’t see the forest through the trees’. There’s no for in there, and none of that argument makes sense. It’s an idiom that means the person is too focused on a small aspect of an issue, and can’t see the bigger picture. Kinda like someone focusing on the word ‘for’ in what it says in Acts instead of what Peter is actually saying about baptism.

Peter says in Acts ‘repent and be baptized for the remission of sins’. It means exactly that, baptism is the normal method to join the body of Christ, and baptism washes away the stain of original sin and all sins you commit, thanks to Jesus’ sacrifice. It’s as simple as that.

I think it’s used both ways, but I’ve heard it said mostly as for the trees with through being an alternative version. en.wiktionary.org/wiki/see_the_forest_for_the_trees

But I certainly see your point and I do agree.