Results 1 - 7 of 7
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | 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 |
||||||
2 | WHY? | Acts 2:38 | Grace and Truth | 50475 | ||
Mr. Slick was used in the article, no refernce to you. | ||||||
3 | 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 |
||||||
4 | 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. |
||||||
5 | 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 |
||||||
6 | 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! |
||||||
7 | 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 |
||||||