Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | need for a bible-anyone | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 50657 | ||
Greetings Raven! I was curious about your exgesis of Acts 2. Where exactly does Acts 2:14-41 say that they had 'faith' or that they had already 'believed'? The only passage which speaks of anything remotely like a response to the Gospel is verse 41 which says that 'those who accepted his message were baptized'. Thus, some of those referred to in Acts 2:37 had not already accepted. No one is tired of Acts 2:38, it is the misinterpretation of Acts 2:38 which causes consternation. ;-) As I have posted several times, the singular command 'to be baptized' cannot be connected to the plural pronoun in the phrase 'for forgiveness of your sins'. The only verb which can be connected to the 'eis' clause is the plural command to 'repent'. Thus, it is repentance which leads to forgiveness of sins - not repentance and baptism. This is a grammatical fact which has to be dealt with in interpreting Acts 2:38. Thus far, I haven't heard any explanation from the baptismal regeneration postition which deals with this point - other than to simply ignore it's importance. It is hard to duplicate this problem in English. The closest I can think of would be an example like the following (remember Greek does not follow the same word order rules as English does): "Paul said that those who live foolishly he does not live foolishly they will perish". If the above were a Greek sentence, it would be obvious that the pronoun 'he' can only refer to Paul. While the pronoun 'they' could only refer to 'those who live foolishly' and the phrase 'they will perish' can also only refer to the plural 'those who live foolishly'. What the baptismal regeneration position does is try to force the 'he' to refer to the plural 'those' and the 'they' to refer to the 'he'. It can't be done. It breaks the rules of Grammar. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
2 | need for a bible-anyone | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 50691 | ||
Hi, Tim; Always believing that the Bible can be understood by mono-lingual non-scholars, ;-) I'd like to suggest another way of looking at baptismal regeneration. It seems to me this idea has two fatal flaws. First, it negates the many instances where the Bible says that all who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved (e.g. Joel 2:32, Acts 2:21, Romans 10:13). This simple, unqualified statement is beautifully illustrated by the thief on the cross. Second, it asserts that Jesus, who came to save the world (John 3:17), is unable or unwilling to save anyone in it without man's help. This is an idea that was dealt with in the Reformation - that a sinner could not enter into a right relationship with God without the help of a human mediator. There are certainly instances in the NT where baptism and salvation are associated within a single story. But there too many counter-examples to claim that the two are invariably linked. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
3 | need for a bible-anyone | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 50695 | ||
Greetings Steve! Well said my friend! Another good Scripture reference is found in the words of Christ in John 6:28-29: "28 Then they asked him, ‘‘What must we do to do the works God requires?” 29 Jesus answered, ‘‘The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”" Was Jesus wrong? Of course He wasn't, and the only 'work' He mentioned is 'to believe'. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||