Results 1 - 8 of 8
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | why was the thief saved without baptism? | Luke 23:43 | Morant61 | 132215 | ||
Greetings Jelkins! Concerning Acts 2:1-4, there simply isn't any way to grammatically 'prove' that 'they' and 'them' only refer to the disciples. But, there isn't anyway to prove that they don't either. However, I believe that the context makes a strong case for the inclusion of all in the room. Note Peter's use of the prophecy from Joel. Acts 2:16 - "No, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel: 17 ”‘In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams. 18 Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy." It would be odd to say the least that Peter would quote a reference to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on 'all' people in support of only the Disciples receiving the Holy Spirit baptism. :-) What is not in dispute though, and you have not addressed it as of yet, is that Acts 2:38-39 clearly says that the promise of the gift of the Holy Spirit is for 'you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.' This certainly doesn't indicate that the baptism of the Holy Spirit was only for the disciples. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
2 | why was the thief saved without baptism? | Luke 23:43 | jelkins | 132235 | ||
You are TOO quick, Tim! I think I followed the rules of grammar perfectly to plead my case of "the Pronouns applying to the Apostles." I don't have a problem with Joel's prophecy. Don't you think the Holy Spirit has been poured out on the whole world through the Apostles preaching and laying on of their hands? I have spent some time this afternoon preparing a doc addressing Acts 2:38. Alas, it is 6,015 characters, and I must cut it by more that 1000 chars before I post it! Have to stop and do other things right now. (I wouldn't be surprised to hear that you go to Bible Studies on Wednesday evenings, too) Talk later. J. Elkins |
||||||
3 | why was the thief saved without baptism? | Luke 23:43 | Morant61 | 132246 | ||
Greetings J. Elkins! You may have followed English rules perfectly, but Greek handles pronoun agreement a little differently. Greek does not use the same sort of word order that we require in English. Therefore, the 'nearness' of a pronoun to a noun is not the determining factor in deciding if a pronoun is in fact the antecedent of a particular noun. In Greek, the form of the words is the determining factor. A pronoun must agree with it's antecedent in both gender and number. In this case, the 'all' of Acts 2:4 is plural in number and masculine in gender. Therefore, it could be refering to either the disciple of 1:26 or to the 120 brothers of 1:15. That is why I said that a case could be made either way. As far as Joel is concerned, I don't believe that the Apostle's preaching or laying on of hands has anything to do with the reception of the gift of the Holy Spirit. I believe, in accord with Acts 2:38, that everyone who believes will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit - whether or not an Apostle is there at all. :-) p.s. - Before you ask about baptism in Acts 2:38, I have posted many times on this verse that the Greek indicates that the statement about baptism is an apositional phrase and is not required to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit - as is also evidenced by Cornelius. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
4 | why was the thief saved without baptism? | Luke 23:43 | jelkins | 133052 | ||
Because of my very limited knowledge of Greek, I cannot confirm or deny your comments about the language. However, it seems logical that, for scripture in its translated form – in this case English, the English grammar rules should apply, and I would expect a Spanish version to follow Spanish grammar rules. Surely, the translators would have considered and compensated for the difference in grammar rules between the two languages. In any case, setting my argument for pronoun usage aside, I would still believe the baptism of the Holy Spirit was for only the Apostles because it was promised to them in John, they were told to wait for it in Luke, and in Acts 2:14, Peter stood up with the eleven; then said these are not drunk; then said, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel. (Should we also have some question whether or not “these” in Acts 2:15 applies to the eleven?) Miriam-Webster says: “Apposition, noun, 1 a : a grammatical construction in which two usually adjacent nouns having the same referent stand in the same syntactical relation to the rest of a sentence.” But, you’re not saying about Acts 2:38 that “repent” and “be baptized” have the same syntactical relation to the rest of the sentence. IMO, what you do say doesn’t quite have the ring of truth to it. If repentance is necessary to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, so is baptism. |
||||||
5 | why was the thief saved without baptism? | Luke 23:43 | Morant61 | 133063 | ||
Greetings Jelkins! You can check the Greek in any legitimate Greek grammar. :-) You wrote: "If repentance is necessary to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, so is baptism." Yet, Acts 10:45 conclusively disproves this statement! :-) p.s. - Thanks for the correction! I did use the wrong term. Instead of 'appositional', I should have used 'parenthetical'. :-) You will have to excuse me my friend. I am not as young as I once was! :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6 | why was the thief saved without baptism? | Luke 23:43 | jelkins | 133266 | ||
I make mistakes, too, and usually plead early onset of senility. Don't you wonder, if you are supposed to have been baptised with the Holy Spirit and have the same gift the Apostles and Cornelius had, why the HS would let you say anything that is in error? I expect it's time for me to find a legitimate Greek grammar and learn how to use it. I have been depending on a learned friend of mine to help me out in this area. You've talked me down, Tim. Practically everything I've said you've called "speculation," in spite of the fact that I gave you scripture to support all I said. At this point, I could only start repeating the things I've said in recent postings. I'll just ask our readers to refer to my notes under main topics "Why was the thief saved without baptism," 8/21/04, and "Created 'in' Christ," tms57mi, 6/16/03. Maybe I will think of something to say later that might persuade you to revisit my position that the baptism of the Holy Spirit was only for the Apostles. As I see it, you are teaching two baptisms instead of one, provided you do teach that water baptism is a command of our Lord that must be obeyed. :-) With sincere concern for those who could find themselves on the wrong end of II John 9. J. Elkins |
||||||
7 | why was the thief saved without baptism? | Luke 23:43 | Morant61 | 133267 | ||
Greetings Jelkins! I just had a birthday, so I might start claiming senility! :-) Concerning speculation my friend, I just have a very high standard for what I will accept as Scripture. If you could show me a Scripture that actually says that the baptism of the Holy Spirit was only for the Apostles then I would believe you. Until then, it is just speculation to claim something based only upon inferences. :-) I would be glad to pick the topic up later if you wish! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
8 | why was the thief saved without baptism? | Luke 23:43 | jelkins | 133353 | ||
acknowledged. | ||||||