Results 1 - 14 of 14
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | WHY? | Acts 2:38 | Grace and Truth | 50404 | ||
Again, I ask WHY DID JESUS TELL THE APOSTLES TO BAPTIZE THE PEOPLE WHO BELIEVED IF IT IS NOT NECESSARY! Let's not Gest, give bible for the answer! Remember 1 Peter 3:21 this is the same Peter in the book of Acts 2:38, DID HE LIE AGAIN? | ||||||
2 | WHY? | Acts 2:38 | Morant61 | 50415 | ||
Greetings Grace and Truth! I have posted on Acts 2:38 several times, but I believe it is important to do so again. There are several reasons why Acts 2:38 can't be saying that both repentance and baptism result in forgiveness of sins. First of all, the verbs are different numbers. a) 'Repent' is an (Aorist, Active, Imperative, 2nd Person, Plural) verb. b) 'Be baptized' is an (Aorist, Passive, Imperative, 3rd Person, Singular) verb. c) The pronoun in the phrase 'for forgiveness of sins' is a Second Person, Plural pronoun. Therefore, the phrase 'for the forgiveness of sins' cannot be associated with the command to 'be baptized'. It is simply not gramatically possible. The best way to view the verse is the view the command to be baptized as a parenthetical statement: "Repent (plural) (and let each one be baptized (singular) in the Name of Jesus Christ) for the forgiveness of your (plural) sins and you (plural) will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" Failure to account for the changes in number in this verses results in bad interpretation. Secondly, there is evidence to indicate that the phrase 'for the forgiveness of your sins' can also be understood as 'because of' or 'as a result' of the forgiveness of your sins. This same construction is used in Mt. 3:11 and 12:41. Mt. 3:11 - "‘‘I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire." If you interpret the word 'eis' in Mt. 3:11 in the same way that you do in Acts 2:38, then baptism produces repentance. Therefore, Acts 2:38 should read: "Be baptized, which leads to repentance..." But, it is clear that Mt. 3:11 indicates that baptism is done as a result of or on the basis of a prior repentance. Mt. 12:41 - "The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now one greater than Jonah is here." The same thing is clear in this verse as well. Jonah did not preach because of the repentance of Niveveh. Rather, Niveveh repented because of the preaching of Jonah. The same 'eis' contruction is used in both of these verses as is used in Acts 2:38. Therefore, there are two very sound grammatical reasons why Acts 2:38 cannot mean that baptism leads to forgiveness of sins. Combined with this are the countless number of verses which specify faith alone as the only condition of salvation. Between the two lines of evidence, it is very clear that baptism is not necessary for salvation, but is something which those who have already been saved are commanded to do. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
3 | WHY? | Acts 2:38 | Grace and Truth | 50450 | ||
"Between the two lines of evidence, it is very clear that baptism is not necessary for salvation, but is something which those who have already been saved are commanded to do". So, if you believe your use of the greek, meanings of the text is correct, look again! 'eis' is used in Mt.26:28 that Jesus shed his blood because of the remission of sins, and not for the remission of sins. 1. While it is true that the passages referenced (Eph. 2:8; Rom. 3:22-27) do not explicitly mention baptism, neither do they contain any allusion to repentance. Are we to assume that repentance is not required for redemption? Surely not. 2. It is rarely the case that a single context will totally exhaust the biblical material on a particular theme. It is the “sum” of the truth that counts (Psa. 119:160), not an isolated text, that may focus upon a limited point of emphasis. Acts 2:38 contends for repentance and baptism as “requisites” for “forgiveness,” with no specific mention of faith. However, by means of that interpretive rule known as “analogy of faith,” belief in the Lord must be implied as well. In his famous work, Biblical Hermeneutics, M.S. Terry defined the concept of “analogy of faith.” This principle “assumes that the Bible is a self-interpreting book, and what is obscure in one passage may be illuminated by another. No single statement or obscure passage of one book can be allowed to set aside a doctrine which is clearly established by many passages” (449). For example, the fact that God is said to be “one” (Dt. 6:4) does not negate the biblical truth so abundantly affirmed elsewhere that God, i.e., the nature of deity, is possessed by three Personalities – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (cf. Mt. 28:19-20). A truth emphasized in one passage may be enlarged by additional information in other texts. This is a most fundamental principle of interpretation. |
||||||
4 | WHY? | Acts 2:38 | Morant61 | 50458 | ||
Greetings Grace and Truth! There isn't any doubt that 'eis' can sometimes be used to indicate result. My previous post specified that there is evidence however that it can be, and is, used in a causual sense. In others words, as the basis for an action. Which is it in Acts 2:38? It could be either. Therefore, your intepretation of Acts 2:38 is not obvious, but simply one of two options. However, you did not respond to my first and primary point. The number of the verbs and pronouns used in Acts 2:38 indicate that the entire phrase about baptism is parenthetical and cannot be associated with the 'eis' clause, simply because the baptism phrase is singular, while the 'eis' clause is plural. The 'eis' clause is associated with the command to repent, which is plural as well. Therefore, repentance leads to forgiveness of sins - not repentance and baptism. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
5 | WHY? | Acts 2:38 | Grace and Truth | 50461 | ||
Remember I didn't write the book of Acts, Luke did. The word 'and' connect the two actions together, hence both must be obeyed! | ||||||
6 | WHY? | Acts 2:38 | Morant61 | 50464 | ||
Greetings Grace and Truth! I was aware that you didn't write Acts! :-) However, Greek has grammatical rules just like English does. A singular verb can be associated with a plural pronoun. Further, 'and' or 'kai' is not always used as a simple connective in Greek. It can mean 'also', or 'even', or 'but', ect.... Both must be obeyed, since they are both commands, but the 'forgiveness of sins' can only be grammatically associated with the command to repent. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
7 | WHY? | Acts 2:38 | Grace and Truth | 50467 | ||
Our attention will be confined to his discussion of Acts 2:38. He begins by quoting the passage: Peter replied, Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Our friend then muses: “This verse is a tough one.” It’s not so “tough” — unless one already has his mind abused with the notion that baptism cannot be a condition in the plan of redemption. The gentleman continues: “It seems to say that baptism is a part of salvation.” It doesn’t “seem” to say it; it actually says it. He opines that this cannot be the case, though, for such a conclusion would contradict other scriptures. Our friend then seeks to employ a rather time-worn evasion in defense of his position — although his version of it may suggest that he really does not understand the nature of the original argument. Mr. Slick attempts to sever the connection between the verbs “repent” and “be baptized” (even though they are connected by the coordinate “and”) on the ground that the former term is plural in number, while the latter is singular.According to him the sense would seem to be: “Repent [plural] for the forgiveness of your [plural] sins, and [separate from the foregoing] each of you [singular] get baptized [as a now-saved person].” The gentleman appears to think that simply because there is a change in grammatical number, this somehow has disassociated baptism from repentance, and therefore distanced it from the phrase, “for the forgiveness of sins.” This is a debate quibble hoary with age. It was ineffectively employed by Ben N. Bogard in his discussion with N.B. Hardeman more than sixty years ago. The eloquent Hardeman demolished the argument! First of all, let us focus again on the motive behind this argument. Here is the difficulty for Mr. Slick and others of his theological persuasion. The two commands, “repent” and “be baptized,” are joined by the conjunction “and.” It follows that if repentance is essential to salvation, so also is baptism. On the other hand, if baptism may be dismissed, repentance may be as well. |
||||||
8 | WHY? | Acts 2:38 | Morant61 | 50469 | ||
Greetings Grace and Truth! Would you care to share with us how the "eloquent Hardeman demolished the argument"? p.s. - Are you calling me "Mr. Slick"? ;-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
9 | WHY? | Acts 2:38 | Grace and Truth | 50475 | ||
Mr. Slick was used in the article, no refernce to you. | ||||||
10 | WHY? | Acts 2:38 | Morant61 | 50477 | ||
Greetings Grace and Truth! That's a relief! :-) LOL But, what about Mr. Hardemen's eloquent demolition of the grammatical argument that the plural phrase "for the forgivess of your sins" can only be associated with the plural command to 'repent', and not with the singular command to 'be baptized'? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
11 | WHY? | Acts 2:38 | Grace and Truth | 50482 | ||
First of all, let us focus again on the motive behind this argument. Here is the difficulty for Mr. Slick and others of his theological persuasion. The two commands, “repent” and “be baptized,” are joined by the conjunction “and.” It follows that if repentance is essential to salvation, so also is baptism. On the other hand, if baptism may be dismissed, repentance may be as well. Since protestants have already determined in their minds that baptism cannot be a requisite for salvation but that repentance is essential, this passage obviously “troubles” them. Their challenge, therefore, is this: How may one divorce the obligation to “repent” from the command “be baptized” in this passage? The above-stated grammatical contortion, based upon the differing verbal “numbers,” is their solution. However, the argument is futile. It is a fundamental form of grammatical construction that a group may be addressed with a general command; and then, as a matter of emphasis, a second injunction may be issued to each individual within the group — both commands being equally obligatory. |
||||||
12 | WHY? | Acts 2:38 | Morant61 | 50487 | ||
Greetings Grace and Truth! That's it! :-) Your quote said: "However, the argument is futile. It is a fundamental form of grammatical construction that a group may be addressed with a general command; and then, as a matter of emphasis, a second injunction may be issued to each individual within the group — both commands being equally obligatory." However, no one is debating that more than one command can be given! The issue is whether or not the plural phrase can be associated with a singular command. Mr. Hardeman apparently does not address this issue at all. Nor does he provide any documentation for what he says. The grammaticall point I have mentioned is supported by Greek Grammarians. A. T. Robertson writes in his "Word Pictures of the New Testament": "Change of number from plural to singular and of person from second to third. This change marks a break in the thought here that the English translation does not preserve. The first thing to do is make a radical and complete change of heart and life. Then let each one be baptized after this change has taken place, and the act of baptism be performed "in the name of Jesus Christ"" This is not a gimmick, but a simple point of grammar. If Luke had wanted both commands to apply to the 'eis' clause, he would have simply written: "Repent (plural) and be baptized (plural) for the forgiveness of your (plural) sins..." In this case, there would not be any doubt that the 'eis' phrase was assoiated with both imperatives. However, the actual text says: "Repent (plural) and let each one be baptized (singular) for the forgiveness of your (plural) sins..." This point, along with the fact that 'eis' does indicate cause in some contexts, must be addressed before one can say that Acts 2:38 teachs that repentance AND baptism result in forgiveness of sins. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
13 | What does God want us to do? | Acts 2:38 | Grace and Truth | 50493 | ||
Now you and I have taken the time to break all of this down, from a simple statement "repent and be baptized for the remission of sins". Do you think the people in the first centry had to go through this to understand the command? "Repent (plural) and be baptized (plural) for the forgiveness of your (plural) sins..." Luke did write the exact words in Acts 2:38. If someone pickup the bible for the first time and read Acts 2:38 and wanted to do just what it says without knowing the tense of the verse can they be saved? I believe they can! Remember God is the author not Luke! What does God want us to do? The text is talking to a goup of people so it would be plural and baptism is singular for each one, and forgiveness is for all. Listen to what you are saying! |
||||||
14 | What does God want us to do? | Acts 2:38 | Morant61 | 50494 | ||
Greetings Grace and Truth! No, I don't think they would have to break it down simply because Greek was their natural language. Just like, we don't have to think too much to distinguish between I, We, They, ect... But, would they have had to follow the rules of Grammar? Yes, they would have! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||