Results 1 - 8 of 8
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | How do we remit | Matt 7:13 | Morant61 | 8755 | ||
Greetings Sharp! I have been following this thread with interest. Is baptism a necessary for salvation? You seem to be arguing that it is based upon Acts 2:38, "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." Thus, you must be taking the phrase "for the forgiveness of your sins" as expressing the result of repentance and baptism. However, there are three very good reasons to avoid this interpretation of this verse. 1) The rest of Scripture does not make baptism necessary for salvation, including Acts. Consider the following verses from Acts where forgiveness is mentioned and notice that not one of them links forgiveness with baptism. a) Acts 5:31 - "God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel." b) Acts 10:43 - "All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name." c) Acts 13:38-39 - ‘‘Therefore, my brothers, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. 39 Through him everyone who believes is justified from everything you could not be justified from by the law of Moses." d) Acts 26:18 - "to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me." Notice that none of these other verses in Acts tie baptism in with the forgiveness of sins. If baptism were essential to salvation, you would think that it would be mentioned in these other verses as well. 2) There are reasons to believe that "for the forgiveness of sins" does not express result, but rather expresses the ground or reason for baptism. The preposition translated as ‘for’ in Acts 2:38 is sometimes used in this way. Consider the following examples and notice that two of them involve baptism (additional evidence that Acts 2:38 should be translated as "on the basis or grounds of the forgiveness of your sins): a) Matthew 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." b) Matthew 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." Allow me to address Mt. 12:41 first. The phrase "repented at the preaching of Jonah" uses the same preposition (eis) as does Acts 2:38. Obviously, the preaching of Jonah was the basis of their repentance, not the other way around. The other example illustrates the same thing and it involves baptism. In Mt. 3:11, baptism did not produce repentance. Rather, repentance was the grounds for baptism. 3) Finally, there is evidence in Acts 2:38 that the middle clause (involving baptism) may be a parenthetical statement. The command to repent is plural. The command to be baptized is singular. This would seems to indicate some break in the chain of thought. If this is the case, the phrase "for the remission of sins" may not even belong with the command to be baptized. No one would debate with you that baptism is important to a believer. However, I just can’t see that baptism is necessary for salvation. There are only a couple of debated Scriptures that even seem to make that case, while the vast majority of Scriptures make it abundantly clear that salvation is through faith alone. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
2 | How do we remit | Matt 7:13 | disciplerami | 77201 | ||
2nd post. Hello Tim and Search and everybody else, The argument for parsing Acts 2:38 as you have shown is without merit, because: 1] No translation available has ever translated it such? You claim that the grammar rules are violated; if so, then your argument is not with me, but with every translation board known to man. Can you show me a single translation that has dared to translate Acts 2:38 as you have offered here? If you give no answer, we all must assume that the Greek scholarship is against you. 2] This argument you offer is old, and has been refuted many times. The two commands, “repent” and “be baptized,” are joined by the correlating conjunction “and.” It follows that if repentance is essential to salvation, so also is baptism. [I realize that you must conclude that repentence is not essential to salvation either, but we shall get to that]. 3] The sentence in Acts 2:38 is what's referred to as a Complex Compound Sentence, comprised of three sentences joined by the correlating conjunction, AND, a] Repent ye (AND)… b] Be baptized (3rd,singular, individually) each OF YE (humon, genetive 'of', plural) on the name of Jesus Christ UNTO the remission of the sins OF YE (humon, genetive 'of, plural), (AND)… 1) in this second sub-sentence, it says 'let be baptized each individual of YE into the name of Jesus Christ with a view to remission of sins. c] YE shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 4] Here's where you take a twist by turning the preposition, EIS, into a causal meaning (because), you also make repentence unnecessary for the remission of sins. To be consistent then, you must say that repentence follows only as evidence that you are saved. Where you did argue by this novel translation that repentence is connected to forgiveness and baptism is not, you must now conclude that repentence and baptism are no more connected to forgiveness than the other: except now, they both follow. Here is how you really see this verse: a] “Because you have forgiveness of sins, you are commanded to repent (it is an imperative, as you pointed out) and commanded to be baptized (an imperative also) … or b] “Repent BECAUSE you have been forgiven of sins, and then you must go ahead and be baptized too, but NOT BECAUSE of your former forgiveness of sins…. [it is you who disassociated baptism from forgivess of sins, right?]. Now you must tell us why we must be baptized. All along, you've been disassociating baptism from forgiveness of sins, while connecting repentance to forgiveness of sins. Now your argument is that repentence follows too! Your argument has been that baptism follows. Now you must, to be consistent with your causal explanation for the preposition EIS, say that repentance isn't associated with forgiveness, not any more than baptism is! ! ! If you deal with anything in this response, deal with this. Explain how all along you can make the case that number and person only connects repentance and forgiveness, and baptism therefore follows. Then you introduce the causal argument for EIS and make repentance no more necessary for forgiveness than is baptism. |
||||||
3 | How do we remit | Matt 7:13 | Morant61 | 77213 | ||
Greetings Dan! Let me touch upon each of your points! 1) This point really isn't valid, since I have made the case several times that there isn't any way to express the difference between a 2nd person singular and a 2nd person plural in English. The KJV used to use You and Ye, but we have no way in modern English to express this difference. But, to interpret this verse in the manner you propose would be like taking the following sentence: "If he buys a new car, she will be mad, he will have a large monthly bill." Did 'she' buy a car? No! The different pronoun seperates that clause from the rest of the sentence. Acts 2:38 does the same thing in the Greek grammar. I know I have posted this quote several times, but here is what Dr. A. T. Robertson said about this verse: "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." Source (Word Pictures) 2) 'Kai' serves in many more ways than simply a cordinating conjunction. It can be translated as 'even', 'but', 'also', ect.... So, the fact that 'kai' is used at the beginning of the clause does not mean that the change in number should be ignored. 3) If the command to 'be baptized' were plural in number, you would be absolutely correct. However, it isn't! :-) 4) My friend, this point was very disingenuous. I have posted many times on this verse, and I have consistently stated that the singular command to 'be baptized' cannot be grammatically connected to the rest of the plural sentence. This final option was thrown in as one of several possibilities. I personally do not hold to it, nor did I claim to do so. This whole topic illustrates how people get set in their beliefs and refuse to budge. The issue I have raised with Acts 2:38 is simple grammar, yet I can't even get you to acknowledge it because it doesn't agree with your interpretation. If we can't even agree on simple grammar, which has rules, how can we possibly agree on other issues? :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
4 | How do we remit | Matt 7:13 | disciplerami | 77268 | ||
Dear Tim Moran, The translation is quite clear the way it is. The way that you propose it should be is translated is no where to be found. It's not just a matter of the difference between 'you', singular or plural, it's a matter of cutting and splicing the entire passage in ways that no one else attempts. The Greek doesn't say, "Repent BECAUSE of the remission of sins, AND be baptized afterward..." Simple grammar is what I hope is visible in the NASB translation. Why do you claim that it is 'simple grammar' that supports your position, yet no translation board, no Greek text has the verse parsed or translated accordingly? I say, if anyone is unwilling to budge it is you. Show me the verse, show me the variant reading, give me evidence. A.T. Robertson's remark does not help your case. He says that the English translation does not preserve the thought. How so? My NASB says, 'Peter said to THEM, Repent (I think that implies he is still talking to the audience YE,THEM) and let EACH ONE (sounds like individual emphasis, reflecting the singular verb 'be baptized') OF YE (humon, plural pronoun, so the 3rd singular verb with the plural pronoun makes the command match in number to the command to 'repent') Following the second verb, for 'be baptized' is the plural pronoun YE which matches the YE connected to forgiveness of sins. Also, your example sentence doesn't work. It doesn't make sense, but Acts 2:38 does. The conditional "if" of your sample sentence goes against your entire argument that the blessing doesn't follow. Or are you now admitting, by offering this sample sentence, that 'forgiveness of sins' is conditional to repentance and baptism? You have me confused. To fit, it would have to include two imperative commands with a result following the second. To my children: "graduate (Ye) high school, and attend college (each individual of YE) out of respect to me with a view to receiving (YE)a degree, and your tuition will be paid in full." -- Rules of Dad 2:38 Have a good day. Disciplerami |
||||||
5 | How do we remit | Matt 7:13 | Morant61 | 77272 | ||
Greetings Dan! I did show you the verse. There is no varient reading. The issue involved is simple grammar, not intepretation. I'm sorry my example wasn't to your liking! :-) It was the best I could do on short notice. I know you won't buy it, but allow me to close this discussion with one more attempt to explain why the Greek grammar cannot mean what you are saying it means. Greek pronouns and verbs must match in both person and number. While it sounds nice to say that Peter is simply going from the group to the individual, doing so seperates the command to 'be baptized' from the promise of 'forgiveness of sins'. One cannot say in Greek, "Be baptized (singular) for the forgiveness of your (plural) sins!" Ignore the rest of the sentence for the moment. The above sentence in Greek would be impossible. The only imperative that can go with the promise of forgiveness of sins in the plural 'repent'. The reason I can't appeal to a translation is simple - there is no way in English to express this distinction!!! :-) But, it's not my fault that we do not have a 2nd person singular and a 2nd person plural pronoun. ;-) Well, as always, at least the information is there on the forum for others to read. So, the readers themselves will have to decide if my point is valid or not. p.s. - Can I get a copy of your 'Rules of Dad'? They sound like they would come in handy! :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6 | How do we remit | Matt 7:13 | disciplerami | 77280 | ||
Hi Tim, I'm not really writing any books because I've still three at home and every day is an adventure, if you know what I mean? Tim, you write, "One cannot say in Greek, 'Be baptized (singular) for the forgiveness of your (plural) sins!'" The reason I have to write one more time on this is because that's not exactly what it says. Here is something a little closer: "Be baptized (singular) YE (plural) for the forgiveness of your (YE) (plural) sins!" Take a look at the Greek and you'll see. The pronoun "YE/humon" is twice in that sentence: once following 'be baptized' and once following 'sins.' The distinction between 'you' and 'ye' was shown pretty well in our Olde English Bibles, but the new translations don't do it. 'Ye' was the word used for showing the plural of 'you.' I wouldn't mind a Texas version, showing 'you' for singular and 'ya'll' for plural. But you make the statement: "The reason I can't appeal to a translation is simple - there is no way in English to express this distinction!!! :-)" The plural and singular can easily be shown if the Greek supports it. The reason the translators don't bother is because those being commanded to repent are the same ones being commanded to be baptized (YE and YE). I don't see the problem. Thanks for taking the time. Disciplerami |
||||||
7 | How do we remit | Matt 7:13 | Morant61 | 77282 | ||
Greetings Dan! I know the feeling my friend! I have three at home, plus a grandbaby! :-) Let me comment on two of your statements: 1) You wrote: "The reason I have to write one more time on this is because that's not exactly what it says. Here is something a little closer: "Be baptized (singular) YE (plural) for the forgiveness of your (YE) (plural) sins!" Take a look at the Greek and you'll see. The pronoun "YE/humon" is twice in that sentence: once following 'be baptized' and once following 'sins.' " You are correct that the pronoun 'of you' (plural) is used twice, but the first occurance is preceded by 'each' (singular) - which matches the singular of the imperative to 'be baptized'. So, this doesn't really impact what I have been saying. If Peter had meant what you are saying, he simply would have had to use the plural command to 'be baptized'. But, he didn't for a reason! :-) 2) You wrote: "The plural and singular can easily be shown if the Greek supports it. The reason the translators don't bother is because those being commanded to repent are the same ones being commanded to be baptized (YE and YE)." How exactly can one 'easily' show the difference? How about Luke 22:31? Reading only the English translations, is 'you' singular or plural? The KJV made distinctions, but modern translations don't because we don't have a 2nd person singular and a 2nd person plural pronoun. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
8 | How do we remit | Matt 7:13 | disciplerami | 77286 | ||
You have a grandbaby? Me too. You wrote: "If Peter had meant what you are saying, he simply would have had to use the plural command to 'be baptized'. But, he didn't for a reason! :-)" I don't believe that is right, the singular "each one" is follow by the genetive OF YE. You are right, the Greek "be baptized" could have a plural form, but it is not ungrammatical to do it this way: the manner in which we have received gives emphasis to the individual, but still applies to the "Ya'll" plural. Lk 22:31 the word transalted 'you' is the accusative plural, humas, so Satan must have requested permission to sift two or more of the disciples like wheat. The same word is used in vese 35, and all of the disciples understood it so and so it is translated, "you (Ye) did not lack anything, did you? And they said, 'No..." The English is clear enough when it shows that all responded. Again, the Greek plural is often depicted in the King James as 'Ye.' I wish we had that in our modern English. |
||||||