Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | 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 |
||||||
2 | 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. |
||||||
3 | WHY? | Acts 2:38 | Morant61 | 50468 | ||
Greetings Grace and Truth! You wrote: "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." So, are you saying that Mt. 3:11 is teaching that baptism produces repentance? Or, that Mt. 12:41 is teaching that Jonah preached because Niveveh repented? It is obvious that this 'eis' construction can be used to indicate either purpose or result depending upon the context. My whole point of bringing it up was simply that Acts 2:38, as you read it, could be saying to be baptized because of the forgiveness of sins. This is a legitimate grammatical option. However, that was only a secondary option which I listed for the sake of completeness. Personally, I think 'eis' in Acts 2:38 does indicate result, but that it is only connected grammatically with the plural command to 'repent', not the singular command to 'be baptized'. It simply is not grammatically possible for the singular command to 'be baptized' and the plural pronoun and phrase 'for forgiveness of your sins' to be associated. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||