Specific Scripture Interpretations

[Sudsy]

This thread is to point to certain scripture verses that some Christian groups refer to that is quite different than the interpretation of most Christian groups. What verse jumps out at you as a verse that has quite a unique understanding.

Here is an example = Acts 2:38

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

I am not as familiar with all the Anabaptists groups but here is the interpretation I believe is the Oneness Pentecostal UPCI interpretation -

The be baptized (must be by immersion only) and only in the name of Jesus Christ' not the Matthew 28:19 text as written. 'For the remission of sins' they believe in baptismal regeneration. In other words until you have been immersed your sins have not been forgiven. And regarding 'the gift of the Holy Ghost' that is interpreted that to know you have received the Holy Ghost and have Him live within you involves being baptized in the Holy Spirit which means you will speak in an unknown tongue. This is the 'salvation process' required to be saved.

There are various reasons given for this interpretation even using other scripture references but to me, this is a very unique interpretation of this verse explaining how one is saved.

Can you point to other verses that are very uniquely understood by Christian groups, primarily Anabaptist groups ?

[Josh]

That’s a great example, Sudsy.

Another one would be where Jesus said “let the little children come unto me” and in Acts where it says entire households were baptised.

Catholics, Orthodox, Reformed, Anglicans, Methodists, Moravians, and others have interpreted that to mean we should baptise infants.

[silentreader]

This thread is to point to certain scripture verses that some Christian groups refer to that is quite different than the interpretation of most Christian groups. What verse jumps out at you as a verse that has quite a unique understanding.

Here is an example = Acts 2:38

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

I am not as familiar with all the Anabaptists groups but here is the interpretation I believe is the Oneness Pentecostal UPCI interpretation -

The be baptized (must be by immersion only) and only in the name of Jesus Christ' not the Matthew 28:19 text as written. 'For the remission of sins' they believe in baptismal regeneration. In other words until you have been immersed your sins have not been forgiven. And regarding 'the gift of the Holy Ghost' that is interpreted that to know you have received the Holy Ghost and have Him live within you involves being baptized in the Holy Spirit which means you will speak in an unknown tongue. This is the 'salvation process' required to be saved.

There are various reasons given for this interpretation even using other scripture references but to me, this is a very unique interpretation of this verse explaining how one is saved.

Can you point to other verses that are very uniquely understood by Christian groups, primarily Anabaptist groups ?

Of possible interest....
Acts 2:38
Legacy Standard Bible
38 And Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ [a]for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Footnotes
Acts 2:38 [a]Or because of

"for" being intended to mean "because of", is a legitimate and quite common usage.

"Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ because of the forgiveness of your sins..."

Puts the focus on repentance -> forgiveness -> baptism.

[Sudsy]

This thread is to point to certain scripture verses that some Christian groups refer to that is quite different than the interpretation of most Christian groups. What verse jumps out at you as a verse that has quite a unique understanding.

Here is an example = Acts 2:38

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

I am not as familiar with all the Anabaptists groups but here is the interpretation I believe is the Oneness Pentecostal UPCI interpretation -

The be baptized (must be by immersion only) and only in the name of Jesus Christ' not the Matthew 28:19 text as written. 'For the remission of sins' they believe in baptismal regeneration. In other words until you have been immersed your sins have not been forgiven. And regarding 'the gift of the Holy Ghost' that is interpreted that to know you have received the Holy Ghost and have Him live within you involves being baptized in the Holy Spirit which means you will speak in an unknown tongue. This is the 'salvation process' required to be saved.

There are various reasons given for this interpretation even using other scripture references but to me, this is a very unique interpretation of this verse explaining how one is saved.

Can you point to other verses that are very uniquely understood by Christian groups, primarily Anabaptist groups ?

Of possible interest....
Acts 2:38
Legacy Standard Bible
38 And Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ [a]for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Footnotes
Acts 2:38 [a]Or because of

"for" being intended to mean "because of", is a legitimate and quite common usage.

"Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ because of the forgiveness of your sins..."

Puts the focus on repentance -> forgiveness -> baptism.

Yes, I have heard this explanation many times that the intent of 'for' was 'because of'. Some versions of this verse say 'for the remmission of sins' or 'because of the forgiveness of your sin' or 'unto the remission of your sins' or 'for release from sin' or 'so that your sins will be forgiven' or 'to remission of sins' and perhaps others.

But it seems strange to me that Peter would word it the way he does and I wonder what Peter himself believed when he said it and what the 3,000 that were baptised that day took him to mean. And how did Peter understand the Matthew 28:19 formula that Jesus gave. There is no record that anyone in the NT was baptised in the Matthew 28:19 formula only baptised in Jesus name. Has this ever puzzled anyone else ?

Another supporting verse that is used by some who believe in baptismal regeneration is where Jesus tells Nicodemus, a Pharisee and member of the Jewish ruling council, that unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. However, Jesus goes on to explain that we are to be born twice, once in the flesh and once in the Spirit.

By the way I am not a believer in baptismal regeneration, if this means water baptism, as there are many other verses such as where the Philippian jailer asks Paul, “What must I do to be saved?” Paul’s response was simple: “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved” (Acts 16:31). No water baptism, no confession, just faith. Another example is the thief on the cross and his statement of faith in Jesus. And various other scriptures regarding salvation.

I do expect to see believers who have not been baptised in water (i.e. Salvation Army believers) and those who have been 'sprinkled' and not immersed in water baptism when we get to heaven. These may be regarded as acts of disobedience by some but I'm not convinced they are salvation requirements.

I used this example and I probably said this before that I married a Oneness Pentecostal minister's daughter and this verse Acts 2:38 was a big concern for them as I was a Trinitarian Pentecostal. They really thought I needed to be re-baptised.

[Josh]

Indeed, that group is really focused on it. I happened to have a Jesus-name baptism as a youngster and have also spoken in tongues for as long as I could speak at all, so Oneness Pentecostal people are very happy to accept me as "born again" by their criteria.

[Sudsy]

That’s a great example, Sudsy.

Another one would be where Jesus said “let the little children come unto me” and in Acts where it says entire households were baptised.

Catholics, Orthodox, Reformed, Anglicans, Methodists, Moravians, and others have interpreted that to mean we should baptise infants.

Good one ! Here is a somewhat related one - 1 Cor 7:14

For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

Could be interpreted that one of the spouses will be saved (made holy) if the other is already saved and if at least one of them is saved then their children are automatically saved also.

[Josh]

First I would take a step back and ask if the authors of the New Testament were writing it for an audience that held the Protestant "fire insurance" view of salvation.

[Ernie]

"But I say to you, do not resist an evil person." -Jesus.

There is a small minority of professing Christians who believe Jesus meant exactly what he said, while the majority believe that this was a bit of hyperbole or something not intended to be taken literally.

[Soloist]

Mat 5:29  And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
Mat 5:30  And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

Mat 19:12  For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

Early writers recorded young men doing this, most modern society would condemn anyone for doing this even in our churches. Society would support and approve if it was for sinful reasons though. I have yet to find a modern church teaching this.

[Sudsy]

"But I say to you, do not resist an evil person." -Jesus.

There is a small minority of professing Christians who believe Jesus meant exactly what he said, while the majority believe that this was a bit of hyperbole or something not intended to be taken literally.

And in this text (Matthew 5:38-41) Jesus gives some examples of 'do not resist an evil person'.

I think there is perhaps another group of professing Christians who believe Jesus gave some literal examples of being non-resistant to an evil person and these all mean to adopt an attitude of humility and seek to be peaceful with those who have wronged us. In other words don't have an attitude of 'getting even' by retaliating. If this is what Jesus was getting at, there perhaps are a number of other literal examples that could be applied, for example, how we respond to one another as we post on this forum when we have differing opinions.