Results 1 - 8 of 8
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Acts 2:38 Repentance and Baptism? | Acts 2:38 | Huron | 110519 | ||
To the casual observer it looks like Peter is saying for us that we can be saved through repentance and baptism. This seems to fly in the face of Ephesians 2:8,9. Is it possible that Peter is really saying to repent, and then be baptized BECAUSE we have forgiveness of sins? The reason that I'm asking is because he makes no reference to baptism in Acts 3:19 where he preaches at portico of Solomon. Regards and Thanks! Huron |
||||||
2 | Acts 2:38 Repentance and Baptism? | Acts 2:38 | Morant61 | 110521 | ||
Greetings Huron! Here is a repost of mine which addresses your question. I hope it is helpful! :-) ************************************** I have posted on Acts 2:38 several times, but I believe it is important to do so again. There are several reasons why Acts 2:38 can't be saying that both repentance and baptism result in forgiveness of sins. First of all, the verbs are different numbers. a) 'Repent' is an (Aorist, Active, Imperative, 2nd Person, Plural) verb. b) 'Be baptized' is an (Aorist, Passive, Imperative, 3rd Person, Singular) verb. c) The pronoun in the phrase 'for forgiveness of sins' is a Second Person, Plural pronoun. Therefore, the phrase 'for the forgiveness of sins' cannot be associated with the command to 'be baptized'. It is simply not gramatically possible. The best way to view the verse is the view the command to be baptized as a parenthetical statement: "Repent (plural) (and let each one be baptized (singular) in the Name of Jesus Christ) for the forgiveness of your (plural) sins and you (plural) will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" Failure to account for the changes in number in this verses results in bad interpretation. Secondly, there is evidence to indicate that the phrase 'for the forgiveness of your sins' can also be understood as 'because of' or 'as a result' of the forgiveness of your sins. This same construction is used in Mt. 3:11 and 12:41. Mt. 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." If you interpret the word 'eis' in Mt. 3:11 in the same way that you do in Acts 2:38, then baptism produces repentance. Therefore, Acts 2:38 should read: "Be baptized, which leads to repentance..." But, it is clear that Mt. 3:11 indicates that baptism is done as a result of or on the basis of a prior repentance. Mt. 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." The same thing is clear in this verse as well. Jonah did not preach because of the repentance of Niveveh. Rather, Niveveh repented because of the preaching of Jonah. The same 'eis' contruction is used in both of these verses as is used in Acts 2:38. Therefore, there are two very sound grammatical reasons why Acts 2:38 cannot mean that baptism leads to forgiveness of sins. Combined with this are the countless number of verses which specify faith alone as the only condition of salvation. 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. *************************************** Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
3 | Acts 2:38 Repentance and Baptism? | Acts 2:38 | Rowdy | 110527 | ||
This debate will probably go on till the end of time and we face Judgement Day but I gotta say that once again the attitude of "Better safe than sorry" should prevail in these kind of discussions. When presented with two or more conflicting interpretations, why would a person want to take a chance and regret the wrong choice all through eternity? It seems relatively clear to me that baptism is required, especially when you get a clear picture from Paul's Letter to the Romans, Chapter 6. There, it is clear baptism represents the burial that Christ went through and from which He was resurrected. It's there we contact the life-saving blood of Jesus through faith and rise up a new creature. There's just too many scriptures leading me to believe this conclusion in spite of the discussion of Greek grammar which is difficult to fully comprehend even by the scholars. I don't think I would want to take a chance and face the wrath of God on such questionable evidence. I would beg of you to keep studying and make up your own mind. It's important, at least to God and His Son. And I still pray for God's blessing on ALL of you. |
||||||
4 | Acts 2:38 Repentance and Baptism? | Acts 2:38 | Morant61 | 110538 | ||
Greetings Rowdy! First of all, thanks for the kind response and the polite discussion. Secondly, I would differ with you on two points. First, the Greek grammar is actually quite simple. One of the great things about Greek is that it is a very precise language. Verbs, nouns, pronouns, and adjectives have to be in agreement with one another in number and gender. In Acts 2:38, there is a clear change in number. This isn't based on opinion, but on the actual form of the word. Simply put, the singular command to be baptized cannot be grammatically connected with the plural command to repent and the plural promise of Acts 2:38. That leaves us with only one choice. It has to be an appositional statement. Secondly, I would differ on which verses are clearest. :-) Eph. 2:8-9 is very clear. Nothing that we can 'do' is necessary for salvation. If I were to play the 'better safe than sorry' game, I would lean on God's grace rather than my works. :-) It is good to discuss with you my friend! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
5 | Acts 2:38 Repentance and Baptism? | Acts 2:38 | Rowdy | 110546 | ||
I too enjoy reading your stimulating messages and appreciate your knowledge of the Word but I'm afraid I must stand by my original statement. In support of that, I can only say there are just as many scholars with PhDs on both sides of this controversy. The fact is that the Koine Greek is no longer spoken or written anywhere in the world. (Ironic isn't it...so our Father wants us to accept Him on His terms on faith. That means we can't know absolutely with such certain evidence that we could prove it in a court of man's law.) Anyway, the bottom line boils down to what is meant by "Better safe than sorry," just like Mommaphs and I have been discussing. In this particular scenario, I'm contrasting the two views of being saved with or without baptism. Some people think that too much emphasis is placed on this single point but it's not our emphasis, it's God's. He sent His Son to take our place on that cross and He gets to dictate the terms of His Last Will and Testament. The Holy Spirit is the executor and bestows the gift of salvation to those who qualify, those who accept the terms and obey God's commands in order to please Him. In Mark 16, Jesus Himself commissioned his disciples to teach everything He taught them to the whole world. He said he who believes and is baptized is saved...I know you're going to quote the rest of the verse back to me about the missing word "baptize" in that latter phrase. But don't you see, if a person doesn't believe there's no need to mention baptizing to him. It's illustrated as follows: If a man wants to live, he must consume nourishment and digest it into his body. If a man doesn't ingest that food or nourishment somehow, there's no need to discuss digestion, he will simply die. We see this kind of consummation of relationships throughout the world. When does a man and woman actually get married in the eyes of the world, at least here in America. It's the point they both say "I do" and not before. When does a person actually receive the gift from his dead benefactor, after he's completed ALL the requirements as provided in that will. Throughout the NT, we see many scriptures on this subject of baptism. It's done for the remission of sins, it represents the burial of Jesus as I stated earlier. There's just too much emphasis from God's Word to ignore this conclusion, at least for me. But one last item and I'll hush at least for now. Let's take the two different views to their ultimate conclusion (and utlimately Judgement Day): 1) my view as I've stated above with the conclusion that all who have been baptized are indeed in God's family. And 2) your view that one can be saved without baptism. With the latter view, one goes to God with His faith in the words, the grammar and Greek as has been discussed. But God asks "But did you obey?" like I instructed you. Remember, God's words through the phrophet Samuel, "It is better to obey God than to make sacrifice." That's what I mean with the phrase "Better safe than sorry." Please think about all this and pray about it. God bless. |
||||||
6 | Acts 2:38 Repentance and Baptism? | Acts 2:38 | Morant61 | 110558 | ||
Greetings Rowdy! Fortunately (or unfortunately), I don't have a PhD! :-) Having read the various interpetations of these verse though, I am much more comfortable with the one which follows the rules of grammar than the one which does not simply because God's Word is written in a language. :-) As for Mark 16, you have already noted that there are a couple of ways of looking at it which do not violate the grammar. Plus, there is the whole question of whether or not the long ending was even original or not. For my part, I stake my claim on the many verses which do not include any mention of baptism as being necessary for salvation. I'm not going to list them all again, but you can search the archives for some of my old posts if you would like (if you have lots of time on your hands)! :-) But, I would simply say this: I do believe that all believers should be baptized because there is no doubt that God commands us to do so. The only point I would differ on is the relationship between salvation and baptism. I believe that Scripture is clear that baptism is a response to salvation, not the other way around. The only problem I have with the better safe than sorry approach is that it puts the burden on our works rather than God's grace. This was the same situtation that Paul faced in Galatians. He could have taken your approach for those who felt that circumcision was necessary for salvation. But, he didn't. In fact, he went so far as to say that they were preaching 'another' gospel other than what they had first heard. There are simply too many Scriptures which teach that salvation is 100 percent a gift which must only be accepted, not a wage which can or must be earned. From my perspective, when we attach some thing that we must 'do' as a condition for salvation, that thing is now a 'work'. I appreciate your gentle spirit my friend! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
7 | Acts 2:38 Repentance and Baptism? | Acts 2:38 | Rowdy | 110622 | ||
Thanks for the encouragement. I'll let you have the last word. Do keep studying my friend. Hope to see you in Heaven. | ||||||
8 | Acts 2:38 Repentance and Baptism? | Acts 2:38 | Morant61 | 110630 | ||
Greetings Rowdy! Thanks my friend! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||