Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Misquote? | Bible general Archive 1 | disciplerami | 77281 | ||
Dear Tim, This is not a misquote; rather it is drawing a logical conclusion from your stated points. Here is what I posted originally, and you have read from a follow up post: ______________ Here's where you take a twist by turning the preposition, EIS, into a causal meaning (because), you also make repentence unnecessary for the remission of sins. To be consistent then, you must say that repentence follows only as evidence that you are saved. Where you did argue by this novel translation that repentence is connected to forgiveness and baptism is not, you must now conclude that repentence and baptism are no more connected to forgiveness than the other: except now, they both follow. Here is how you really see this verse: a] “Because you have forgiveness of sins, you are commanded to repent (it is an imperative, as you pointed out) and commanded to be baptized (an imperative also) … or b] “Repent BECAUSE you have been forgiven of sins, and then you must go ahead and be baptized too, but NOT BECAUSE of your former forgiveness of sins…. [it is you who disassociated baptism from forgivess of sins, right?]. Now you must tell us why we must be baptized. All along, you've been disassociating baptism from forgiveness of sins, while connecting repentance to forgiveness of sins. Now your argument is that repentence follows too! Your argument has been that baptism follows. Now you must, to be consistent with your causal explanation for the preposition EIS, say that repentance isn't associated with forgiveness, not any more than baptism is! ! ! If you deal with anything in this response, deal with this. Explain how all along you can make the case that number and person only connects repentance and forgiveness, and baptism therefore follows. Then you introduce the causal argument for EIS and make repentance no more necessary for forgiveness than is baptism. ______ That is my conclusion from what you have said. Did I misunderstand and if so, please point to the exact place where I went off course from your argument. Thank so much. Disciplerami |
||||||
2 | Misquote? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 77285 | ||
Greetings Dan! You wrote: " If you deal with anything in this response, deal with this. Explain how all along you can make the case that number and person only connects repentance and forgiveness, and baptism therefore follows. Then you introduce the causal argument for EIS and make repentance no more necessary for forgiveness than is baptism." I have addressed this already, several times. The post you were referring to was one in which I listed several interpretative options, each of which did not allow baptism to be necessary for salvation. The 'eis' arguement you mention is one among several that I listed. However, I have stated quite clearly all along which option I believe! :-) If I remember correctly, (it has been awhile since that post), someone previously had stated that 'eis' always meant result and never the basis for an action. So, I had listed several times where this was not true. While it usually indicates result, it can be causual. But, that is not my position on Acts 2:38. I just wanted to clear! ;-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
3 | Misquote? | Bible general Archive 1 | disciplerami | 77290 | ||
Ok, Thanks for clearing that up. Disciplerami |
||||||