Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Isn't Baptism neccessary for salvation?? | Rom 10:9 | Morant61 | 72650 | ||
Hi Meredith! The terms 'protasis' and 'apodosis' refer to two different kinds of clauses, normally within a conditional statement. The 'protasis' is the conditional statement and the 'apodosis' is the statement made based upon the stated condition. So what the author Searcher quoted was saying was that Acts 2:38 can be read as: "If you repent (protasis), and since you have repented be baptized (apodosis), you will receive forgiveness of sins" (Loose paraphrase). The simplest way to look at this verse is to recognize that Greek is very precise about its usage of person, gender, and number. The first verb (repent) and the last phrase (for the forgiveness of your sins) are both plural in number. Any verb or phrase which is to be associated with these two must also be plural, or it cannot be grammatically associated with these two. However, the command to 'be baptized' is singular, not plural. Thus, it is not grammatically part of the sequence mentioned above. The best way to interpret this verse in English would be something like this: "Repent (oh, and let each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus)for the forgiveness of your sins." In the above example, the command to be baptized is an interruption to the thought of the passage. In other words, it is repentance, and repentance alone which results in forgiveness of sins - not repentance and baptism. Is this clear? :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
2 | Isn't Baptism neccessary for salvation?? | Rom 10:9 | disciplerami | 72673 | ||
You ask 'is this clear?' No. But what an interesting paraphrase! And Acts 22:16 says, "Now why do you [singular] delay, arise [singular] and be baptized [singular], and wash away [singular] thy sins [plural], calling [singular] on his name [singular, I'm not sure of the point of all this grammar stuff, but it makes as much sense as your use of it]." It would be interesting to see the Tim Moran paraphrase of Acts 22:16. Seriously, you can do better than this: "If you repent (protasis), and since you have repented be baptized (apodosis), you will receive forgiveness of sins" (Loose paraphrase). Let me see if I have this right. The crowd was pricked in the heart and asked what to do. The apostles responded, "Repent for the forgiveness of sins, and because you have already repented, therefore you will be already saved because salvation is based on repentance alone. Now everyone go get baptized for no particular reason" [my paraphrase of your paraphrase] Am I getting the gist of it? Your explanation seems to be lacking a certain something. Your explanation is intended to take people's attention off of baptism, right? But Acts 2 says that 3,000 were baptized because they understoood Peter to say, "Repent ye, and let each of you be baptized,...for forgiveness of sins." But you say they didn't need to, right? By the way, you got one part right. The word "for" is from the greek EIS which is always prospective. Grammatically, 'forgiveness' would follow repentance. What you didn't get right is that repentance is made visible in an obedient faith seen in baptism. Frankly, I find the one about the thief on the cross to be a much better explanation for not being baptized [even though Jesus wouldn't utter a word about it until after the resurrection, Mt. 28:18-20]. Water doesn't save, works don't save, faith alone doesn't save, the preacher doesn't save, but I'll tell you what does: an obedient faith (Romans 1:5; 16:26) that gets in the water and trust in the atonement of Jesus Christ. Salvation is a gift that is received at a particular point in time. You say at the point of repentance, others say at the point of 'faith only', Peter says at Baptism (1 Peter 3:21), others say when you get sprinkled as a little bitty baby. Whose right? Something tells me you're not a translator for the Lockman Foundation [I learned that such sarcasm is acceptable after reading a number of post by the moderator]. Nothing personal. |
||||||
3 | Isn't Baptism neccessary for salvation?? | Rom 10:9 | stjones | 72690 | ||
Hello, disciplerami; Tim is much too much the Christian gentleman to give your note an appropriate reply. However, I'm in a grouchy mood tonight so I will. If you think you've scored any points against an established and well-respected forum member with such a juvenile post, you're wrong. There was certainly nothing illuminating or responsive to Tim's points. Those of us who have been around a while have seen dozens of shooting stars come and go. They show up here, try to make a name for themselves, post a few messages lacking in substance, and then, when they don't get the respect they've done nothing to earn, they disappear. Will you be one of them? I don't know. But if you could demonstrate one tenth the wisdom, discernment, knowledge, patience, and care that Tim has, I for one might be interested in what you have to say. I don't know who the sarcastic moderator is, but he or she must be as new as you are. I haven't seen a moderator in the fifteen months I've been hanging around here. Perhaps you've picked the wrong role model. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
4 | Isn't Baptism neccessary for salvation?? | Rom 10:9 | disciplerami | 72729 | ||
You write that Tim is too much the Christian gentleman to respond. I guess that means you are not a Christian gentleman when you do what Tim would not do. You write: "Those of us who have been around a while have seen dozens of shooting stars come and go. They show up here, try to make a name for themselves, post a few messages lacking in substance, and then, when they don't get the respect they've done nothing to earn, they disappear. Will you be one of them? I don't know. But if you could demonstrate one tenth the wisdom, discernment, knowledge, patience, and care that Tim has, I for one might be interested in what you have to say." My aim is not to "score points" and I'm not trying to "earn" your respect. Judging by your visceral, mindless response, I doubt that I would want it. This is, I presume, a place of ideas. But when someone speaks an idea that doesn't conform to the modern mantra, you and others start saying things like, "you're just a newcomer, a lot of us have been around a lot longer than you, start showing the big men on campus a little respect, say what we say and after a while you will have our respect." Tim may be a gentleman in every way, except his talent is lacking when it comes to explaining Scripture. You speak of Tim's wisdom, but I see no wisdom in twisting the Acts 2:38 passage. There is zero justification for the way Tim Moran mangled the words of Peter. And how unkind of you to jump to his defense and then give him none. The Lockman Foundation has the best word-for-word translation available, I'm surprised that people on this forum aren't offended by Tim's mangling of Scripture. The "shooting stars" you mention may be more than that, they may be burning just as bright but they've gone to more fertile fields, where eyes and ears are open. Good day. |
||||||
5 | Isn't Baptism neccessary for salvation?? | Rom 10:9 | BradK | 72742 | ||
Disciplerami, My dear brother, I would offer that your response to Tim was very harsh and uncalled for. This "person" on the Forum sees no such thing as "Tim's mangling of scripture". I rather concur and feel that he has provided both a sound basis and proper exegetical response to his words. As to respect, it is most certainly earned. Our brother Tim has my respect in this matter as well as others pertaining to Greek Grammar. By your own words, you have neither demonstrated "talent" nor tact in your response:-) Speaking the Truth In Love, BradK |
||||||