Results 181 - 200 of 309
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Grace and Truth Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
181 | Can God save us the way HE WANTS TOO? | Acts 2:38 | Grace and Truth | 50377 | ||
"Of course, my understanding of the verse is that Peter was not connecting repentance with water baptism for salvation". Then you would have to do the same with Mark 16:15-16. These are the words of Jesus himself! The reason I ask is I hear and read about this seperation alot, my question to those of faith is (can God save us the way HE WANTS TOO)? If He tells us to be baptized for the remission of sins, and he does, why can't we just trust His word? Many on this forum don't believe that God could save through water baptism, but those in the bible believed. My last question is, did baptism come from God or is it man made, and give scripture for the answer. | ||||||
182 | Can God save us the way HE WANTS TOO? | Acts 2:38 | Grace and Truth | 50402 | ||
I see that you still want to seperate Peter's answer to those who asked "what shall we do" My question was did Peter lie or did he tell them what the Lord said to those who believed? Where is it in the bible does it say were saved by FAITH ALONE! The book of James wouldn't agree with this statement, no where in the bible will you find such a statement. Again in Mark 16:15-16 DID JESUS TELL THE APOSTLES WHAT TO PREACH? OR did he not know what he was talking about? You equate baptism with the Law of Moses, or with something man thinks of himself, but what I'm talking about is WHAT JESUS SAID we must DO! Which is a direct ORDER FROM GOD John 12:48-50. Baptism is a mandate FROM GOD, man did not inclue it GOD did! It is the only way (into Christ) (into his DEATH) through FAITH! I notice you pick out verses in Romans and Galatians and you don't read to the end of those chapters, because if you did you would learn what the text is teaching, God spoke to Abraham Romans 4:20-25 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving goly to God:(unbelief in what God said! what Jesus said IN Mark 16:16, what Peter told the people to do in Acts 2:38, vs. 21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. Jesus promised salvation to through who believed and were baptized in Mark 16:16. If God promised salvation through faith, repentance,confession,baptism and living faithful; we shouldn't stagger at what he promised! In Galatians 3:6-29 teaches that they or we are not to depend on the Law of Moses, because it was just a school master vs.24 to bring us to Christ, vs 27 teaches us how we get (into Christ) by baptism through faith, we put him on! |
||||||
183 | Can God save us the way HE WANTS TOO? | Acts 2:38 | Grace and Truth | 50403 | ||
I see that you still want to seperate Peter's answer to those who asked "what shall we do" My question was did Peter lie or did he tell them what the Lord said to those who believed? Where is it in the bible does it say were saved by FAITH ALONE! The book of James wouldn't agree with this statement, no where in the bible will you find such a statement. Again in Mark 16:15-16 DID JESUS TELL THE APOSTLES WHAT TO PREACH? OR did he not know what he was talking about? You equate baptism with the Law of Moses, or with something man thinks of himself, but what I'm talking about is WHAT JESUS SAID we must DO! Which is a direct ORDER FROM GOD John 12:48-50. Baptism is a mandate FROM GOD, man did not inclue it GOD did! It is the only way (into Christ) (into his DEATH) through FAITH! I notice you pick out verses in Romans and Galatians and you don't read to the end of those chapters, because if you did you would learn what the text is teaching, God spoke to Abraham Romans 4:20-25 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving goly to God:(unbelief in what God said! what Jesus said IN Mark 16:16, what Peter told the people to do in Acts 2:38, vs. 21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. Jesus promised salvation to those who believed and were baptized in Mark 16:16. If God promised salvation through faith, repentance,confession,baptism and living faithful; we shouldn't stagger at what he promised! In Galatians 3:6-29 teaches that they or we are not to depend on the Law of Moses, because it was just a school master vs.24 to bring us to Christ, vs 27 teaches us how we get (into Christ) by baptism through faith, we put him on! |
||||||
184 | 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? | ||||||
185 | CAN JESUS DICTATE THE TERMS OF SALVATION | Acts 2:38 | Grace and Truth | 50406 | ||
DON'T LEAVE OUT JOHN 3:5, BORN OF WATER AND THE SPIRIT! Perhaps you don't understand my question; I know Jesus saves, can he also dictate the terms? WHAT DID HE TELL THE APOSTLES TO DO IN MATTHEW, MARK, LUKE AND JOHN? DID THEY CARRY OUT HIS COMMANDS? OR DID THEY CHANGE WHAT HE SAID FOR THEM TO DO? |
||||||
186 | Can God save us the way HE WANTS TOO? | Acts 2:38 | Grace and Truth | 50428 | ||
I'm going to share some information with you, so bear with me. A Dispute About the Purpose of Baptism by Wayne Jackson Article Description Several questions and comments have been recently received relative to some of our material dealing with the purpose of (water baptism, ) as that theme is set forth in the New Testament. Accordingly, in this Feature article, we wish to address a readers obviously sincere concerns. We receive a great number of questions dealing with a variety of biblical issues. It simply is not possible to deal with all of them. Some are impertinent, trivial, seemingly bereft of any semblance of sincerity and, therefore, in our judgment, warrant no response. We give very little, if any, attention to unsigned correspondence. Some questions, however, though reflecting erroneous ideas, are characterized by an apparent earnestness, and are of such significance, that they may justify a response that is more extensive than our normal Questions and Answers column might accommodate. Such was the nature of several questions and comments recently received relative to some of our material dealing with the purpose of (water baptism,) as that theme is set forth in the New Testament. Accordingly, in this Feature article, we wish to address a reader’s obviously sincere concerns. We will state our friend’s objections, and then follow with our response. |
||||||
187 | Can God save us the way HE WANTS TOO? | Acts 2:38 | Grace and Truth | 50431 | ||
Baptism isn’t always mentioned A gracious gentleman acknowledges that we have cited a number of passages which appear to connect baptism with salvation (e.g., Mt. 28:19-20; Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:38; 22:16; Rom. 6:3-4; 1 Cor. 12:13; Gal. 3:27; Eph. 5:26; Tit. 3:5; 1 Pet. 3:21). But he says: “I’m also familiar with Ephesians 2:8, ‘by grace are ye saved ’ and Romans 3:22-27. Nowhere in these passages is baptism mentioned as a requisite to salvation.” 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). |
||||||
188 | Can God save us the way HE WANTS TOO? | Acts 2:38 | Grace and Truth | 50432 | ||
1. 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. 2. While Ephesians 2:8 mentions salvation by grace through faith, later, in the same letter, the apostle affirms that one is “cleansed . . . by washing of water with the word” (5:23). If one concludes that “saved” (2:8) is the equivalent of “cleansed” (5:23), it then becomes obvious that salvation by “faith” is not independent of being “washed with water,” (a phrase admitted by virtually all scholars to be a reference to baptism - Arndt, 481; Thayer, 382). Moreover, while both grace and faith are stressed in Romans 3:22ff – as means of “redemption” – three chapters later the inspired apostle affirmed that one is buried with Christ in baptism that he might walk in “newness of life” (6:3-4). Is “newness of life” a parallel descriptive for salvation? Of course it is. Clearly, then, salvation by grace and faith is not exclusive of other conditions specified in supplementary texts relating to justification. Those who call on the name of the Lord shall be saved Our kind critic charges: “In your article on “Promise Keepers” you cite Romans 10:12; interestingly you do not mention the very next verse, ‘whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.’” 1. We have published but one article dealing with the Promise Keepers movement. It appeared in our Penpoints section, September 20, 1999. That essay contained no reference to Romans 10:12. But we will happily address the point being made. 2. In Acts 2, after describing a “great and notable day” that |
||||||
189 | Can God save us the way HE WANTS TOO? | Acts 2:38 | Grace and Truth | 50433 | ||
1. had been foretold by the prophet Joel, this declaration was made: “And it shall be, that whosoever, shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Acts 2:21). To what does “calling” on the name of the Lord refer? Surely not merely verbalizing the expression, “Lord, lord,” for Christ plainly denounced those who do nothing more than that (cf. Mt. 7:21; Lk. 6:46). It is clear that a comparison of verse 21, with the information provided subsequently in this same chapter, demands that “call” be assigned a comprehensive sense. Note this question: Is the “saved” of verse 21 equivalent with “remission of sins” in verse 38? Yes it is; the blessing is identical. Since there are not alternate plans of salvation for the lost sinner (cf. Jude 3), it becomes obvious that the “call” (v. 21) encompasses the “repent and be immersed” of the later passage (v. 38). To suggest, therefore, that the term “call” somehow negates the specific commands to repent and be baptized in order to enjoy remission of sins, is a serious error. What about Zaccheus and the thief on the cross? Our friendly critic continues: “Jesus announced to all gathered at Zaccheus’ house that ‘This day is salvation come’ (Lk. 19:9); no mention is made of baptism. And as Jesus hung on the cross, the thief crucified next to him recognized His power and majesty; Jesus rewarded the thief’s faith with the memorable promise, ‘Today shalt thou be with me in paradise’ (Luke 23:43). While one could, I suppose, speculate that Zaccheus and his house were somehow baptized in an unrecorded interim, there can be no doubt about what happened on the cross.” 1. Neither Zaccheus nor the crucified thief was explicitly instructed to “repent.” Will it be argued that repentance is a matter of no consequence? One ought to reflect upon the logical extension of an argument before making it. |
||||||
190 | Can God save us the way HE WANTS TOO? | Acts 2:38 | Grace and Truth | 50434 | ||
* At the time of their encounters with the Savior, neither Zaccheus nor the thief were under the commission which was inaugurated later – on the day of Pentecost. They both lived during a transition period when the law of Moses was still operative (thus providing forgiveness by means of animal sacrifice), and yet the ministry of John the Baptizer had begun also (Lk. 16:16). It was a very unique time. Further, John baptized “for the remission of sins” (Mk. 1:4), and vast multitudes were immersed by him (Mt. 3:5-6). It cannot be established whether or not either of these gentlemen had been exposed to John’s preaching, or whether or not they had, at some point, obeyed his message relative to baptism. They might very well have, and then, one or the other of them could have lapsed into his old ways again. One thing we do know is this: those who heard John’s preaching, and who ignored his baptism, were rejecting the counsel of God (Lk. 7:30). Here is an interesting question: if refusing John’s baptism was a rejection of God, what would be the case with reference to one who refuses the baptism commissioned by Him whose shoes John was unworthy to bear? * During the days of His public ministry, Christ had the power to personally forgive sins, independent of the rite of baptism (cf. Mk. 2:5). When the Lord died, however, his will was subsequently expressed in the written record of the new covenant (Heb. 9:15-17). The Savior’s “will” is now mandated by means of a written code. That ratified will (cf. Mt. 26:28) requires immersion “for the forgiveness of sins” (Acts 2:38). No one has the right to argue that forgiveness may be bestowed in some other fashion. |
||||||
191 | Can God save us the way HE WANTS TOO? | Acts 2:38 | Grace and Truth | 50435 | ||
1. There is not a solitary example in the book of Acts of a “conversion” independent of baptism. The cases of Zaccheus and the thief, therefore, prove nothing relative to immersion. Why was Jesus baptized? “Our Savior himself was baptized; surely he didn’t do so in order to ensure salvation. Rather, His baptism is proof positive of the symbolic nature of the act, as opposed to its efficacy.” 1. Our Savior never repented; are we to assume then that repentance is unnecessary? Again, our friend should carefully calculate the consequences of his argument before he makes it. 2. Jesus was baptized in order to “fulfill all righteousness” (Mt. 3:15). This expression has to do with doing “whatever has been appointed by God to be acknowledged and obeyed by man” (Vine, 684). Again, it is here used “in the sense of fulfilling the divine statutes” (Arndt, 195). The point is, for whatever reason he was immersed, Christ obeyed. If, therefore, one is instructed to be immersed today in order to have his sins washed away (Acts 22:16), if he follows the Lord’s example, he will obey. Moreover, he will not attempt to argue a contrary position. 3. If our baptism is somehow parallel to Christ’s baptism, and we are baptized in order to demonstrate “symbolically” a salvation we have received already, would that not suggest that Jesus was immersed to “demonstrate a salvation already received”? And if that logic follows, from what was Jesus saved? 1. Clearly, the baptism of Jesus was in a different class than ours, and his case provides no argument to invalidate baptism “for the remission of sins” today. Those who don’t believe are condemned “You frequently cite Mark 16:16, in which Jesus states that ‘he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved . . . .’ However, the second clause in that sentence, ‘but he that believeth not shall be damned’ states unequivocally that belief (faith) is the key element to salvation.” 1. While faith may be described as “a key element,” in the salvation process, because it is the motive out of which additional acts of obedience arise, it is not correct to suggest that it is the only element in salvation. Again we stress, such reasoning would exclude repentance. May one be saved without sorrow for sin and a corresponding reformation of life? Surely our friend will not so contend. 2. When Christ affirmed that one who disbelieves will be condemned, it was entirely unnecessary to add further acts of rebellion in order to make the case. The unbeliever is condemned at that point. It is superfluous to extrapolate the disobedience. |
||||||
192 | Can God save us the way HE WANTS TOO? | Acts 2:38 | Grace and Truth | 50436 | ||
1. Suppose we say: “He who eats and digests his food shall live, but he who eats not shall die.” Would it be sensible to say: “He who eats and digests his food shall live, but he who eats not, and does not digest, shall die.”? Can one digest what he does not eat? Is it even necessary to discuss baptism with one who is in a state of disbelief? 2. The plain truth of the matter is this: Jesus “unequivocally” stated that “he who believes and is baptized shall be saved.” The terms “believes” and “is baptized” are, in the Greek Testament, compound participles in the aorist tense. In Greek grammar this reflects a format which indicates an action that takes place prior to that of the leading verb (Machen, 116-117), which, in this case, is “shall be saved.” This means that both actions occur before that suggested by the verb. In other words, salvation does not occur until the believer has been baptized. This is as plain as language can be. 3. J.W. Willmarth, a noted Baptist editor and writer, once conceded: “. . . our Saviour said, just before he ascended the heavens: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. We shall hardly dare to tamper with his royal word and make it run, He that believeth and is saved shall be baptized (306). Jesus didn’t baptize “Finally, if baptism is essential to salvation, does it not seem odd that the scriptures specifically state that our Saviour Himself did not baptize (Jn. 4:2).” 1. That is not exactly correct. The text actually says that “Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John . . . .” This clearly indicates that Jesus did not view the rite as a trivial matter. Professor Alvah Hovey, an eminent Baptist scholar, noted that “it is a maxim that ‘what one does by another, he does himself’ . . . .” Accordingly, he says, this is “rather an explanation of the manner in which Jesus baptized. . .” (110); it does not reflect a minimizing of immersion. 2. This text merely declares that Jesus did not personally administer the immersion. And there is a very good reason for that. There almost certainly would have been a problem in that those who were immersed directly by Christ would have tended to develop an inordinate pride and claimed some superiority over those who were baptized merely by one of the disciples. There is absolutely nothing in this context to suggest that baptism is not essential. |
||||||
193 | Can God save us the way HE WANTS TOO? | Acts 2:38 | Grace and Truth | 50441 | ||
Disobedience doesn’t condemn In conclusion our critic says this: “I suggest that the believer is indeed being disobedient if,when he does not get baptized. But to suggest that not getting baptized is a sin unto damnation, as you do, is troubling doctrine, not to mention unscriptural.” 1. Note the logic in our friend’s conclusion. One who refuses to be baptized is disobedient. But refusing to submit to baptism is not a damning act. Thus, one is forced to conclude that disobedience is not a damning activity. How very opposite to the affirmation of an inspired writer who affirmed that Christ is the author of eternal salvation to those who obey (Heb. 5:9). Is there a solitary line in the New Testament that promises salvation to the disobedient? 2. We must again press this point. Those who refused John’s baptism (cf. Mk. 1:4), “rejected the counsel of God” (Lk. 7:30). “Counsel” denotes “the purpose of God respecting salvation” (Thayer, 104). May one repudiate God’s saving plan, and still be saved? If such a judgment hung over those who rejected John’s baptism, what of those who reject the baptism commissioned by Jesus (Mt. 28:19; Mk. 16:16)? 3. Those who submitted to John’s baptism, “justified God” (Lk. 7:29), “declared God to be righteous, i.e., by receiving the baptism declared that it had been prescribed by God rightly” (Thayer, 150). If accepting baptism “justifies” God, would not rejecting baptism “condemn” God? Is it possible that one can so act as to “condemn” God, and yet not be held responsible for that rebellion? We would respectfully suggest, therefore, that our corespondent’s position, namely that one may be disobedient and reject baptism, and yet still please God and receive salvation, is the dogma that is both “troubling” and “unscriptural.” It is our devout hope that he will reconsider his point of view. SOURCES Arndt, William and Gingrich, F.W. (1967), A Greek,English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago). Hovey, Alvah (1885), Commentary on the Gospel of John (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society). Machen, J. Gresham (1951), New Testament Greek For Beginners (New York: Macmillan). Terry, M.S. (1890), Biblical Hermenuetics (New York: Eaton and Mains). Thayer, J.H. (1958), A Greek,English Lexicon of the New Testament (Edinburgh: T.,T. Clark). Vine, W.E. (1991), Vine’s Amplified Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (Iowa Falls: World Bible Publishers). Willmarth, J.W. (1877), “Baptism and Remission,” Baptist Quarterly, Philadelphia, July. Comment on this article. www.christiancourier.com,images,juniorAd.gif WHAT OTHERS ARE SAYING “I was searching on the internet and started hitting different sites to see how much truth I could find. Thanks for your site. Keep putting the truth out there for others to find.” “You have a great Web page. It is easy to use and uncluttered.” “Thank you for your work, I find it to be very beneficial to me in my ‘Christian walk.’” “I believe your website to be one of the most sound informational sites in existence. I browse daily to await new articles ... I encourage all my brethren to go to this site to view all the material that you have made available. May God continue to bless you all in this worthy effort.” “I was pleased to find this web site with such positive and informative articles. Keep up the good work.” “Your website is a wonderful piece of work.” “Thanks for the rich source for sermons, sermon ideas, |
||||||
194 | CAN JESUS DICTATE THE TERMS OF SALVATION | Acts 2:38 | Grace and Truth | 50443 | ||
Be real! What he did there was to prepare the people for his death! Also in his ministry he said his time has not yet come! | ||||||
195 | 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. |
||||||
196 | WHY? | Acts 2:38 | Grace and Truth | 50452 | ||
Those who don’t believe are condemned “You frequently cite Mark 16:16, in which Jesus states that ‘he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved . . . .’ However, the second clause in that sentence, ‘but he that believeth not shall be damned’ states unequivocally that belief (faith) is the key element to salvation.” 1. While faith may be described as “a key element,” in the salvation process, because it is the motive out of which additional acts of obedience arise, it is not correct to suggest that it is the only element in salvation. Again we stress, such reasoning would exclude repentance. May one be saved without sorrow for sin and a corresponding reformation of life? Surely our friend will not so contend. 2. When Christ affirmed that one who disbelieves will be condemned, it was entirely unnecessary to add further acts of rebellion in order to make the case. The unbeliever is condemned at that point. It is superfluous to extrapolate the disobedience. Suppose we say: “He who eats and digests his food shall live, but he who eats not shall die.” Would it be sensible to say: “He who eats and digests his food shall live, but he who eats not, and does not digest, shall die.”? Can one digest what he does not eat? Is it even necessary to discuss baptism with one who is in a state of disbelief? 1. The plain truth of the matter is this: Jesus “unequivocally” stated that “he who believes and is baptized shall be saved.” The terms “believes” and “is baptized” are, in the Greek Testament, compound participles in the aorist tense. In Greek grammar this reflects a format which indicates an action that takes place prior to that of the leading verb (Machen, 116-117), which, in this case, is “shall be saved.” This means that both actions occur before that suggested by the verb. In other words, salvation does not occur until the believer has been baptized. This is as plain as language can be. 2. J.W. Willmarth, a noted Baptist editor and writer, once conceded: “. . . our Saviour said, just before he ascended the heavens: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. We shall hardly dare to tamper with his royal word and make it run, He that believeth and is saved shall be baptized (306). |
||||||
197 | Can God save us the way HE WANTS TOO? | Acts 2:38 | Grace and Truth | 50454 | ||
No one said that BAPTISM ALONE SAVES, it's through faith one is to be baptized, Acts 2:38; Mark 16:16. | ||||||
198 | Luke 7:29-30? | Acts 2:38 | Grace and Truth | 50460 | ||
Look at Luke 7:29-30! Our Lord taught more about baptism than you know. Mark 11:27-33; John 3:3-5;Matt28:18-19. If the scribes, the elders, chief priest rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being NOT! baptized of him. Then what are you those who believe like you doing to the counsel of the Lord Jesus Christ? John 12:48-50. | ||||||
199 | 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! | ||||||
200 | WHY? | Acts 2:38 | Grace and Truth | 50466 | ||
Remember I didn't write the book of Acts, Luke did. The word 'and' connect the two actions together, hence both must be obeyed! The phrase “for the remission of sins” translates the Greek eis aphesin ton hamartion. The preposition eis points to a goal that is as yet unreached. Never, in any reputable translation, is this expression rendered “because of the remission of sins.” Compare, for instance, the use of the phrase in Matthew 26:28. In that text, Jesus declared: "For this is my blood of the covenant which is poured out for [eis] the remission of sins.” Now here is an appropriate question: Does it matter whether or not one believes that the Lord shed his blood “to obtain” remission of sins, or if he died “because of” pardon already effected? Is what one believes regarding the efficacious nature of Christ’s death important? How can one possibly hold the view point that opposite constructions are equally valid? Such is a wholly illogical position. How can one conscientiously ignore inspired grammatical forms that were designed to convey precise religious ideas? Unfortunately, this is the extreme to which some appear to be driven in their irresponsible attempts to extend Christian fellowship across the borders of modern denominationalism. Underline the phrase “for the remission of sins” in Acts 2:38, and in your margin make this notation: See Matthew 26:28 — same purpose phrase. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ] Next > Last [16] >> |