Results 1 - 20 of 37
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: jelkins Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | How do you know the Bible is the word of | NT general Archive 1 | jelkins | 129787 | ||
Perhaps His Word, His Spirit, and His presence are one and the same; as in, "let the word of Christ dwell in you richly" (Col 1:18). I read that God reveals himself through the Word; and the church is responsible for preaching the Word. | ||||||
2 | Do we receive *holy *spirit as a gift? | Luke 11:13 | jelkins | 130159 | ||
HiRay, to clarify, are you talking about the spirit of man (lower case "s") and the Holy Spirit (of God; upper case "S")? For information, about receiving Jesus: John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Colossians 2:6 As you therefore have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him, Refer Acts 2:38 and 5:32. 2:38 can be read either as meaning the HS himself, or a gift that he gives, but 5:32 seems to mean the Spirit himself. Knowing in what measure we receive the Spirit takes a lot of study. The text says it comes at the point of obeying the command to be baptized. The two occurrences of baptism of the HS were a result of promise, not in obedience to command. |
||||||
3 | why was the thief saved without baptism? | Luke 23:43 | jelkins | 129797 | ||
How do you regard the salvation of the thief on the cross, who was not baptized? The thief on the cross lived under the Law of Moses, as did Jesus. At the time of the crucifixion, the kingdom had not come, the church had not been established, the New Covenant wasn’t effective. At that time Jesus had not given the command to be baptized. As evidenced in Matt 9, Jesus had the power while he was alive to forgive sins and, by inference, to give entrance to Paradise to the thief – through his word alone. After his death and resurrection, he still has the power, again through his word, but bound by the pattern/form/requirements of His last will and testament, the New Covenant. (Following text copied from BibleGateway.com, NKJ V.) Topic of discussion as found in Luke. Luke 23:39Then one of the criminals who were hanged blasphemed Him, saying, "If You are the Christ, save Yourself and us." 40But the other, answering, rebuked him, saying, "Do you not even fear God, seeing you are under the same condemnation? 41And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this Man has done nothing wrong." 42Then he said to Jesus, "Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom." 43And Jesus said to him, "Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise." Command to be baptized into Christ’s death for remission of sins came later, after Jesus’ death, before his ascension.. (See Mark 16, also) Mat 28 18And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19Go therefore[3] and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen. Only after Christ’s death was the new law binding. Heb 9 16 For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. 17For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives. Jesus’ mode of operation while he was alive. Matt 9 5For which is easier, to say, "Your sins are forgiven you,' or to say, "Arise and walk'? 6But that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins"--then He said to the paralytic, "Arise, take up your bed, and go to your house." I was well into adulthood when someone pointed these things out to me with loving persistence, even though I was a reluctant listener. I’m grateful they cared enough. To know when the church was established (Acts 2) has made all the difference in the world in understanding scripture. May God bless the reading of His Word. J. Elkins |
||||||
4 | why was the thief saved without baptism? | Luke 23:43 | jelkins | 130875 | ||
I’m slow in saying thanks for all the input to my note about the salvation of the thief on the cross. I’ve read and pondered your comments and the scriptures you referenced. Acknowledging that the basic topic here is whether or not baptism has been necessary for salvation since the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, I speak in humility and love (Eph 4:15, reference Jude 3, I Pet 4:11) All preconceptions, prejudices, guesswork, and speculation aside, my Bible still says salvation is in Christ, and that we are baptized into Christ, and that baptism saves us, and that baptism washes away sins, and that he who believes and is baptized will be saved, that obedience is key, that the devils also believe and tremble, and so forth. (II Tim 2:10, Rom 6:3 and Gal 3:27, I Pet 3:21, Acts 22:6, Mark 16:16, I Pet 1:22, Jas 2.). Maybe you can see why I feel the teaching that we are saved by faith alone without baptism, and thus outside of Christ, has a bit of a disconnect. God has always required obedience, both in the old and new testaments. Quoting from Heb 5:9 “…He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him…” There is nothing in the waters of baptism that saves except an obedient sinner. The requirement of baptism for remission of sins hardly makes the new Law of Liberty more stringent and difficult than the old law of Moses. And, while we’re talking difficult, I remember that Jesus said “narrow is the gate and difficult is the way…” so, shouldn’t we expect some amount of difficulty? I read recently on the Forum a reference to the story of Nahum. His leprosy wasn’t cured until he had done what God told him to do, dip 7 times in the Jordan River. Maybe not logical and reasonable according to man’s (Nahum’s) thinking, but certainly not more difficult than he was able to do You are defending your position (and I have no quarrel with the thief being saved through faith and confession while Jesus was alive), but you aren’t telling me specifically what part of my reasoning is false. Which of the scriptures I have referenced are not true? What part of my note is not based solely on scripture? J. Elkins |
||||||
5 | why was the thief saved without baptism? | Luke 23:43 | jelkins | 130889 | ||
Tim, I also appreciate your sincerity, and your apparent love of the Lord and his Word. I believe, whole-heartedly, in the grace of God, which is that he gave his Son to die for us while we were yet sinners. Grace has been called "unmerited favor." I believe that faith is absolutely necessary for salvation, as in: "without faith it is impossible to please him." I expect our differences go back to the issue of whether or not mankind is born totally depraved. Maybe you believe man sins because he is born a sinner, and I believe man is a sinner because he sins (looking at Ezekiel 18). I deny that what I have posted should be called "this 'other gospel'" It is curious, but I, too, hope that some will see the truth in the scriptures I have used and come to the same conclusions I present. Assuming you believe Paul's words to Timothy, "all scripture is given by inspiration," why is it that your position appears to deny the truth of the following three paragraphs, which I copied from one of my earlier posts. All spiritual blessings are “in Christ” (Eph 1:3). Salvation is a spiritual blessing. Salvation is “in Christ” (II Timothy 2:10). This is supported by Ephesians 1:7, Colossians 1:14, and II Timothy 3:15 (“In Him” we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins). So, “how do we get into Christ?” The question is answered by scripture in at least two places – Romans 6:3 and Galatians 3:27: We are baptized into Christ. Paul said to the Ephesians, “there is one baptism.” I ask you, is it the baptism you believe is done after one is saved, or the baptism I believe saves by putting one into Christ – where salvation is? You say "Scripture clearly teaches that salvation is by grace alone, not works." And, I call attention to Eph 2:8-10, with emphasis on verse 10, and James chapter 2. Since I like to give scripture to support my answers, I can't address your several questions off the top of my head, Tim. I will say that my next post will be about the Spirit-baptism of Cornelius from Acts 10. May God bless our studies together. J. Elkins |
||||||
6 | why was the thief saved without baptism? | Luke 23:43 | jelkins | 132072 | ||
Tim, it may be clear to you that water baptism is not necessary for salvation, but not to me. (You haven’t said which is the “one” baptism in Ephesians 4.) I believe salvation is accomplished by the HS, but at the time of water baptism. I’ve posted before, there’s nothing in the water that saves except an obedient believer. I expect you will agree, the text of Acts 10/11 doesn’t say Cornelius was saved prior to water baptism. And, Acts 11:17-18 substantiates that the conversion of Corneluis was, indeed, a special circumstance. That Peter even went into the house of a Gentile was pretty special. The text gives reasons for that baptism of the HS. Salvation is not one of them. Other texts put salvation at the point one is buried with Christ in [water] baptism. [See more in my separate posts about the conversion of Cornelius.] For the reasons following I disagree with you concerning whether or not men are totally depraved at birth. (You say, all men are born sinners.) The scriptures you use seem to support your interpretation (Psalm 51, Romans 5, and others I’m sure, such as Romans 7:21-23), but I have to reconcile them with the following clear teachings from God’s word. Taken as a whole, scripture calls for a conclusion that men become sinners when they sin; they are not born sinners. What little I know about the marked difference in Western thought and Easter thought has been a great aid to understanding scripture, and I hope to learn more about that. The latter is more figurative. Psalm 51:5 is literally translated, “Behold in iniquity I was born and in sin my mother conceived me,” which can lend to the idea that David was born into an evil and sinful world. Indeed, all of us are, and cannot escape succumbing to the temptations Satan puts in our way. As it is written, “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” (Rom 3:23) The Word does teach that man becomes depraved and lost because of the sin he commits/practices, and he can do nothing on his own to reconcile himself to God. And, it follows that man is saved by God’s grace alone, as you say. But, that doesn’t negate the fact that man has a part to play in the plan of salvation. When he believes, he must obey. Check it out, my friends. Salvation IS conditional. It was for the Jews; it is for us. God has always required obedience. As an added consideration, I call to attention that the term “reconciliation” assumes there has been a “conciliation” Looking at the words in Genesis 8:21 “…although the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth…”, I ask: isn’t this saying a man’s heart is not evil before he becomes a youth? And, Ezekiel 18:20 says, “The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.” This text speaks for itself. Looking at Romans 9:11, “….children not having done any good or evil.” Seems pretty self-explanatory. Matt 19:14. “But Jesus said, Suffer the little children, and forbid them not to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.” It stretches my imagination to think Jesus would say that, if the children were totally depraved. I believe the children were (are) pure and sinless, as Christians become, through the blood of Christ, when they enter the Kingdom. (Col 1:13). All said, Luke 8:15 is really the only verse I need to tell me that man is not born totally depraved and is able to personally respond to God’s word in a righteous way. There are good and honest hearts for the word of God to be planted in. The text: “But the ones that fell on the good ground are those who, having heard the word with a noble [honest] and good heart, keep it and bear fruit with patience.” Thanks for discussing our differences with me, Tim. I expect we have others besides these two, but studying together is a step in the right direction. Both of us know about Paul’s admonition that there be no divisions among us, that we should think the same thing and speak the same thing. I also guess we both know that would happen only if we stick strictly to the text – nothing added – nothing deleted – no doctrines and commandments of men. Striving to please Him. J. Elkins |
||||||
7 | why was the thief saved without baptism? | Luke 23:43 | jelkins | 132079 | ||
Steve, what I hear you saying is that you think Cornelius was saved because of his belief, and before Peter got there. And if you are saying that, you are saying he was saved even before he received the manifestation of the Holy Spirit. That doesn't quite plumb with the fact that Peter was to tell him words whereby he might be saved. I stand by my statement: "Acts 10/11 doesn’t say Cornelius was saved prior to water baptism." |
||||||
8 | why was the thief saved without baptism? | Luke 23:43 | jelkins | 132212 | ||
Scripture says in Acts 11:13-14 “..and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter; Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.” You say, “Peter did not tell him words whereby he might be saved.” I’ll leave it to the Forum readers to make judgment about this. Regarding your question, “On whom did the Holy Spirit descend at Pentecost?” You answer “Believers”; I answer “Apostles.” Following is information I posted yesterday supporting why I answered Apostles. In Acts 1:15, the text says there were about 120 disciples in the upper room. In Acts 2, the text does not say all 120 received the baptism of the HS. Tracking the antecedent of the pronouns in Acts 2:1-4 leads to Acts 1:26. The pronouns “them” and “they” refer to Matthias and the eleven, and can be traced even further back to the 11 in Luke 24:49. In John 14, Jesus promises the baptism of the HS to the Apostles at their Passover Feast. To say the baptism of the HS was for all is to read into scripture something that is not there. I am not saying the Holy Spirit is not for all Christians; only that the baptismal measure of the HS is not for everyone. |
||||||
9 | why was the thief saved without baptism? | Luke 23:43 | jelkins | 132235 | ||
You are TOO quick, Tim! I think I followed the rules of grammar perfectly to plead my case of "the Pronouns applying to the Apostles." I don't have a problem with Joel's prophecy. Don't you think the Holy Spirit has been poured out on the whole world through the Apostles preaching and laying on of their hands? I have spent some time this afternoon preparing a doc addressing Acts 2:38. Alas, it is 6,015 characters, and I must cut it by more that 1000 chars before I post it! Have to stop and do other things right now. (I wouldn't be surprised to hear that you go to Bible Studies on Wednesday evenings, too) Talk later. J. Elkins |
||||||
10 | why was the thief saved without baptism? | Luke 23:43 | jelkins | 132654 | ||
Good words Armond888. But, aren't you missing the point that baptism was not a requirement under the Law of Moses (under which both Jesus and the thief lived); it became a requirement under the New Testament, after Jesus died. Heb 9. 16 For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. 17For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives. |
||||||
11 | why was the thief saved without baptism? | Luke 23:43 | jelkins | 132655 | ||
Steve, I’m guessing we disagree on what’s in the package. I read that hearing and obeying the gospel is part of it. I don’t believe I ever pretended Cornelius and household were apostles. In other notes, I’ve pointed out that Acts 11 gives the reason the HS descended on them -- To show the Apostles that salvation was for the Gentiles, too. I’m convinced Cornelius and company did not receive the power and total inspiration that the Apostles received. Had that been the case, there would have been no need for Peter to continue preaching to them; they would have known as much about it as he did. And, for others than the Apostles to have received the same power from the HS would have watered down (compromised) the authority the Apostles had to unlock the mysteries of God’s purpose for mankind with the “keys of the Kingdom,” and to serve as the foundation of the church. These couple of verses in Romans 2, apply to God-fearing Gentiles like Cornelius. 14for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 26Therefore, if an uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision? An excellent case can be made from scripture that Christians have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit through the medium of the Word. I pray that our conversations may glorify God. J. Elkins |
||||||
12 | why was the thief saved without baptism? | Luke 23:43 | jelkins | 132657 | ||
Thanks for your comments AO. You make a couple of points that I had not picked up on. I know the scriptural qualifications for Overseer(Bishop)/Elder/Pastor, and I applaud your aspiration to such a high calling. I cheer you on toward your goal. |
||||||
13 | why was the thief saved without baptism? | Luke 23:43 | jelkins | 132753 | ||
My bad, Steve. Using “God-fearing” as an adjective for Gentiles results from an interpretation of mine based on the line of scripture, “keeps the righteous requirements of the law.” IMO any Gentile who would keep the righteous requirements of the law would do so because he feared God. And, the rhetorical question, “will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision?” leads me to believe God counted the Gentile righteous, and don’t believe He would do that for one who did not fear Him. Now, please tell me if “for conscience' sake” is in the text, or is that your interpretation? Don’t you think Cornelius served God as he did “for conscience' sake?” More in a future post about the HS dwelling in Christians through the medium of the Word. J. Elkins |
||||||
14 | why was the thief saved without baptism? | Luke 23:43 | jelkins | 133052 | ||
Because of my very limited knowledge of Greek, I cannot confirm or deny your comments about the language. However, it seems logical that, for scripture in its translated form – in this case English, the English grammar rules should apply, and I would expect a Spanish version to follow Spanish grammar rules. Surely, the translators would have considered and compensated for the difference in grammar rules between the two languages. In any case, setting my argument for pronoun usage aside, I would still believe the baptism of the Holy Spirit was for only the Apostles because it was promised to them in John, they were told to wait for it in Luke, and in Acts 2:14, Peter stood up with the eleven; then said these are not drunk; then said, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel. (Should we also have some question whether or not “these” in Acts 2:15 applies to the eleven?) Miriam-Webster says: “Apposition, noun, 1 a : a grammatical construction in which two usually adjacent nouns having the same referent stand in the same syntactical relation to the rest of a sentence.” But, you’re not saying about Acts 2:38 that “repent” and “be baptized” have the same syntactical relation to the rest of the sentence. IMO, what you do say doesn’t quite have the ring of truth to it. If repentance is necessary to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, so is baptism. |
||||||
15 | why was the thief saved without baptism? | Luke 23:43 | jelkins | 133266 | ||
I make mistakes, too, and usually plead early onset of senility. Don't you wonder, if you are supposed to have been baptised with the Holy Spirit and have the same gift the Apostles and Cornelius had, why the HS would let you say anything that is in error? I expect it's time for me to find a legitimate Greek grammar and learn how to use it. I have been depending on a learned friend of mine to help me out in this area. You've talked me down, Tim. Practically everything I've said you've called "speculation," in spite of the fact that I gave you scripture to support all I said. At this point, I could only start repeating the things I've said in recent postings. I'll just ask our readers to refer to my notes under main topics "Why was the thief saved without baptism," 8/21/04, and "Created 'in' Christ," tms57mi, 6/16/03. Maybe I will think of something to say later that might persuade you to revisit my position that the baptism of the Holy Spirit was only for the Apostles. As I see it, you are teaching two baptisms instead of one, provided you do teach that water baptism is a command of our Lord that must be obeyed. :-) With sincere concern for those who could find themselves on the wrong end of II John 9. J. Elkins |
||||||
16 | why was the thief saved without baptism? | Luke 23:43 | jelkins | 133350 | ||
Sorry to be slow Kalos. It took me a while to look up and study all the scripture references you gave. (I couldn’t find “IssuesandAnswers” on the Grace to You web site) You (and others) ask, “If baptism is necessary for the forgiveness of sin, why didn't Peter say so in Acts 3?” I say, if God inspired Luke to write that Peter said baptism was for remission of sins in the first recorded gospel sermon – the baseline, if you please (Acts 2:38), perhaps He didn’t see a need for Luke to keep on repeating it. The truth of it had already been established . Please tell me how you explain away the fact that the only time in scripture “faith alone” is alluded to, the text says, “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only” (James 2). And, please give reasons James would have said, not once but three times, that “faith without works is dead.” My own interpretation is that the righteous works which God requires of his believers are different from “the works of the law” [of Moses]. Compare Eph 2:9 with Eph 2:10. You say, “Paul never made baptism any part of his gospel presentations.” But, when Luke records Paul’s words about his own conversion, he said that baptism was to wash away his sins. Your explanation about Acts 22:16 doesn’t work for me. Much more logical to think the washing was done in the waters of “baptism” rather than in the “calling.” I think this verse is a good example of “calling on the name of the Lord” (doing something by His authority – as we might say, “STOP! In the name of the law!). You say, “Paul states that ‘Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel,’ thus clearly differentiating the gospel from baptism.” I ask, aren’t you comparing apples and oranges? There is nothing in this text that indicates that baptism for remission of sins is not a part of the gospel preached, only that Paul didn’t do much of the baptizing. The reason is given in 1 Cor 1:15, “Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name,” and thus lend to the divisions among the brethren. In your Note 1, sixth paragraph, all the examples you give of Jesus forgiving sins happened before his death; before baptism into his death became a requirement for salvation. (Rom 6, Heb 9) There is nothing in the text of scripture that indicates the baptism of the Holy Spirit was for salvation of the Apostles or of Cornelius, et al. It was to furnish the power to usher in the Kingdom of God, to the Jew first, then to the Gentile. I agree wholehearted with these comments of yours: “One of the basic principles of biblical interpretation is the analogia scriptura, the analogy of Scripture. In other words, we must compare Scripture with Scripture in order to understand its full and proper sense. And since the Bible doesn't contradict itself, any interpretation of a specific passage that contradicts the general teaching of the Bible is to be rejected. …Thus we must look for interpretations of those passages that will be in harmony with the general teaching of Scripture.” However, I do not agree with your comment, “Since the general teaching of the Bible is, as we have seen, that baptism and other forms of ritual are not necessary for salvation, no individual passage could teach otherwise.” I see the “general teaching” in Matt 28, establishing Christ’s authority and His command to be baptized, and in Acts 2:38, the first time God’s plan of salvation is presented by the Holy Spirit through the Apostles after the resurrection and ascension of Christ. All other interpretations must be in harmony with that. Not too difficult, if you are careful to weed out the “doctrines and commandments of men” that abound in the religious world today. |
||||||
17 | why was the thief saved without baptism? | Luke 23:43 | jelkins | 133351 | ||
Regarding your Note II About the Greek word, EIS. The following information is from a friend and preacher of the gospel. The Greek word, eis, is a preposition indicating motion or direction; such as, to, into, toward, for, among. It is used about 1,500 times, and overwhelmingly, translators have not translated it “because of.” It would seem that if “because of” were an accepted definition, it could be substituted in any one of those places. If, in Acts 2:38, the ‘eis’ could mean “baptized ‘because of’ (instead of ‘for’) remission of sins,” then, it would follow that it must also mean “repent because of remission of sins,” because the verse says “repent and be baptized..,” and that doesn’t quite fit reasoning or logic. If the “because of” argument works for Acts 2:38, why not for Matt 26:28? Or, Romans 10:10, which say: Matt 26:28, “For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for (because of?) the remission of sins.” Rom 10:10. “For with the heart man believeth unto (because of?) righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto (because of?) salvation.” Kalos, in Acts 2:38, you try to link forgiveness of sins to repentance by partitioning off in parentheses the words about baptism. I offer II Cor 7:10 which says “For godly sorrow produces repentance leading to salvation,” showing that at the point of repentance, you haven’t got forgiveness of sins yet. I find it hard to believe that anyone can misunderstand Mark 16:16. The text speaks for itself. However, you make an effort to force it to conform to your interpretations about baptism. I have heard the proposition that Mark 16:9-20 may not be an authentic part of Mark’s writings, but the doctrine of Christ regarding baptism for remission of sins is not dependant on that text. I ask, why couldn’t 1 Peter 3:20-21 be saying, as Noah and family were saved by water, so are we also saved by water? Read it again. If my understanding about the Holy Spirit baptism is correct, as stated in previous notes on this forum, and it is most certainly plausible, then Rom 6 and Gal 3 are most certainly talking about water baptism. Again, in your comments about Paul’s conversion in Acts 22:16, I see you trying to fit this clear text about baptism into your mold. Let it speak for itself. You say, "Baptism is certainly important, and required of every believer. However, the New Testament does not teach that baptism is necessary for salvation." I say, if as you say, baptism is “required of every believer,” then it must be the one baptism in Eph 4. I invite all to do a study of the 8-10 cases of conversion in Acts, keeping in mind the plan of salvation was given first in Acts 2:38. You decide if baptism is necessary for salvation. Suggest you leave the cases of conversion talked about in Matt – John on the other side of the cross. Kalos, I will say to you as I said to Tim. You are preaching two baptisms instead of one. Should I believe you, or God? |
||||||
18 | why was the thief saved without baptism? | Luke 23:43 | jelkins | 133353 | ||
acknowledged. | ||||||
19 | why was the thief saved without baptism? | Luke 23:43 | jelkins | 133703 | ||
Thanks for your response, Tim. I will check more into what you say. In the meantime, for anyone interested, here is a link to The Bible Truths Online Greek Course, Lesson Seven titled the Definite Article and Prepositions. Sublinks to articles about Jesus' Diety, the ceasation of miracles, and the "for" in Acts 2:38. www.bibletruths.net choose "the Bible" "Study Course" "Site Map" "On-line Greek Course" "Lesson Seven" |
||||||
20 | why was the thief saved without baptism? | Luke 23:43 | jelkins | 133713 | ||
Tim, continuing discussion about the Greek word, eis, how can I find BAG, the definitive lexicon of Greek words, which you reference? Searched Google for "Greek Lexicon" and got 153,000 hits. Thought I'd just ASK you instead of looking through them all. Don't like to admit I also searched for "BAG". The return on that was much too general, as you might expect. Have found other info about it. At the following link, article entitled "A Rose is a Rose" contains this statement: 5. Finally, Doctor Daniel B. Wallace has stated in his Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics that the “causal” use of eis in Acts 2:38 (i.e., “because of” instead of “in order to”) has been demonstrated to fail in terms of linguistic evidence (p. 370) – http://www.christiancourier.com/penpoints/homographFor.htm |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 ] Next > Last [2] >> |