PDA

View Full Version : EIS and baptism



mlh647
Nov 30th 2004, 09:27 PM
I have been involved in a study of EIS and its relation to ACTS 2:38. Thus far I have not found any compelling evidence to suggest that it means "because of" in that context (or any). Most of the opinion I have recieved from that point of view is shaped by doctrinal belief and not intellectual study. Any thoughts?

Toolman
Nov 30th 2004, 09:51 PM
Matt. 12:41 - The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at (EIS) the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.

Luke 11:32 - The men of Nineve shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for they repented at (EIS) the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.

mlh647
Dec 1st 2004, 11:52 PM
Those verses have already been presented as an argument. The only problem with using that as evidence is that the "because of" is suggested or implied. The phrase refers to time/place.

"repented at the preaching of Jonas"......they were at that preaching which occured at a specific time and place and they repented. Did they repent "because of"? I am sure that we can all agree the answer to that is yes. But that is not the problem. The real question lies in the meaning of the word. Putting it in context with the account in Jonah we can infer that they repented "because of" Jonah's preaching. In this verse, however, the word EIS is simply stating they were "at" an event/location.

Humboldt
Dec 2nd 2004, 11:31 AM
I have been involved in a study of EIS and its relation to ACTS 2:38. Thus far I have not found any compelling evidence to suggest that it means "because of" in that context (or any). Most of the opinion I have recieved from that point of view is shaped by doctrinal belief and not intellectual study. Any thoughts?Hello and welcome to our board! http://bibleforums.org/images/smilies/cool.gif


For one thing, John 3:16 ensures us that faith + nothing = salvation.

But wait! http://bibleforums.org/images/smilies/redface.gif
What if a person believes but isn't baptized? http://bibleforums.org/images/smilies/scratch_chin.gif
Well, if 'whoever believes has eternal life', then it should be quite impossible for a person who believes to not have eternal life, shouldn't it?
So I guess we can safely assume that any believer, whether he is baptized or not, must be saved! http://bibleforums.org/images/smilies/jfj.gif

This is a good reason to allow 'for' in Acts 2:38 to be used as 'because of'. Otherwise, it would contradict poor John 3:16. http://bibleforums.org/images/smilies/cool.gif


Acts 2:38 (NIV) -- "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

As you probably know, forgiveness of sins comes right at the moment of salvation. Yet it somehow happens to occur right at the exact same time as when we begin to repent. Therefore in this sense, repentance is actually our conversion point -- you know you have faith if you are truly repentant. So repentance can logically be considered a given condition to our salvation, because God's Spirit indwells within us at exactly the same point in time as when we are converted.

Water baptism, however, is a human decision apart from conversion. It is also a work, and God does not allow salvation to rest on our working.

Doctrine and logic both demand that we must declare baptism to be for the forgiveness of sins in a different sense than 'to receive' the forgiveness of sins, because we know that it would completely contradict both God's will and God's Word if we interpreted it that way.

When I say I will go to jail for my crime, am I saying I am going to jail to receive or obtain my crime, maybe even commit a crime? No, jail is obviously a consequence for my crime, not a requirement to commit my crime. That's just plain silly-sounding. :lol:

In Acts 2:38, it's best to view the phrase, 'baptized for the forgiveness of sins' as a consequential clause rather than a conditional clause.

Although water baptism does have importance in its significance, and although it is a righteous act of faith, it cannot have any saving power whatsoever without contradicting Scripture.


http://bibleforums.org/images/smilies/smile.gif


Good night.
God Bless!!

http://bibleforums.org/images/smilies/hug.gif http://bibleforums.org/images/smilies/hug.gif http://bibleforums.org/images/smilies/hug.gif

mlh647
Dec 2nd 2004, 01:41 PM
Please read my original post. I appreciate your opinion and your reference to other scripture, however, I am looking for a more intellectual point of view concerning language, word def., and word usage. Using doctrine to establish Scripture is dangerous. We should use Scripture to establish doctrine. Thank you for the reply.

theabaud
Dec 2nd 2004, 02:19 PM
In regards to the word Eis, we often make the linguistic error of Bifurcation. We assign one meaning to it when more than one apply.

As to Humbolts comments he brought a very credible argument which will help us to understand scripture. We must understand the Bible in the Context of not only the passage, but the whole Bible. If Jesus said that there is only one way, there is only one way and all other interpretation must conform to that statement because it neccessarily excludes all other points of view and cannot be made to fit into another view that suggests otherwise without a significant changing or perverting of scripture.

A great discussion on Baptism started HERE. (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=21751&page=6&pp=15&highlight=paulian+gospel)

Humboldt
Dec 2nd 2004, 08:10 PM
I see what you're asking now. You need to look at all the other words in Greek, so that you can see the Greek grammar of Acts 2:38 as a whole.

Go here. They explain it pretty darn well.

http://www.carm.org/doctrine/acts_2_38.htm

mlh647
Dec 2nd 2004, 10:45 PM
thank you for the responses.....I am not yet convinced of anything. Anything more?

Humboldt
Dec 3rd 2004, 02:20 AM
Hello again. :)


I'll give it to you in a different English phrase.

"Kill someone and have a memorial, [every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ] for the victim's death".

This is the Humboldtified version of Acts 2:38. :) Here, I've substituted 'repent'for 'kill someone'. 'Be baptized'has been conveniently replaced with 'have a memorial'. 'The forgiveness of your sins' has a whole new name as well; 'the victim's death'. You can therefore see why I'm so lonely. :hug:

- We know that killing someone is obviously the condition for the victim's death. In the same way, I can also say that repentance in Acts 2:38 is the condition for the forgiveness of sins.

- We know that we have been commanded to have a memorial for the victim's death. Does this mean 'to receive' the victim's death or 'because of' the victim's death? In the same way, I can safely say that in Acts 2:38 we are commanded to be baptized 'because of' the forgiveness that took place at repentance.


Here's a few of my own words on the Greek grammar.


The word 'repent' in Greek is 'metanoeo'. But for important basic grammatical reasons, Acts 2:38 does not say 'metanoeo', it says 'metanoesate'. In the Greek grammar, putting 'esate' at the end of 'metanoeo' would show that the word 'repent' must be followed up with an explanation of why he said 'repent'. We can't just say 'metanoesate' and then leave it alone to go on to another topic without going back to explaining metanoesate. We would be screwing up the grammar if we did that.

And that's what the baptismal regenerationist does, by misinterpreting the English text so that it doesn't fit the Greek text. He would have to see it as, 'REPENT...okay, 'nuff said about repentance...now be baptized for forgiveness of sins and you'll get the gift of the Spirit. Yay let's party!' What he doesn't realize is that the Greek word 'metanoesate' cannot be all by itself as its own clause. Peter uses his few words on baptism as a statement regarding the whole point of repentance. We have forgiveness of sins because we have repented, and we are baptized for that.


Hope that helps. :)


God Bless!! :hug:

mlh647
Dec 3rd 2004, 04:19 AM
The word 'repent' in Greek is 'metanoeo'. But for important basic grammatical reasons, Acts 2:38 does not say 'metanoeo', it says 'metanoesate'. In the Greek grammar, putting 'esate' at the end of 'metanoeo' would show that the word 'repent' must be followed up with an explanation of why he said 'repent'. We can't just say 'metanoesate' and then leave it alone to go on to another topic without going back to explaining metanoesate. We would be screwing up the grammar if we did that.



Thanks for the info.....that is much better than opinion and someone feeding me their doctrine. I am still having some problems with word order though. The repentance is still followed up on in the verse, that we know for sure. But that does not make the "for the remission of sins" come immediately after repent. It says repent and be baptized (passive yes, but that has nothing to do with it.....im not sure how people injected that into the argument). Also, why does the 'and you shall recieve the gift of the holy spirit' come after all of this?

Humboldt
Dec 3rd 2004, 07:44 AM
Thanks for the info.....that is much better than opinion and someone feeding me their doctrine. I am still having some problems with word order though. The repentance is still followed up on in the verse, that we know for sure. But that does not make the "for the remission of sins" come immediately after repent. It says repent and be baptized (passive yes, but that has nothing to do with it.....im not sure how people injected that into the argument). Also, why does the 'and you shall recieve the gift of the holy spirit' come after all of this?
You can look at it like this. 'Repent for the forgiveness of your sins and be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins.'

Of course in the English grammar, it wouldn't be proper to say, 'Repent for the forgiveness of your sins and be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins.' You would have to leave the first of those out and say 'Repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins', even if the word 'for' is used in a different way for both of them.

That may appear kinda confusing, so let me clarify.

There was a family whose property was unfairly taken from them, and they stopped at nothing to get it back. They told themselves, 'Work for the land and die for the land.' If you'll notice, this phrase is exactly like the sentence used in Acts 2:38. There are two 'fors' in this phrase. The first 'for' means 'to obtain' and the second 'for' means 'unto' or 'because of'. Yet it still wouldn't pose any problem to rewrite the sentence as 'Work and die for the land', even if the two 'fors' are used differently.

Acts 2:38 does just that. Although it would be true to say, 'Repent for the forgiveness of your sins and be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins', proper English still demands that we phrase it as 'Repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins', even if the two 'fors' are used differently.


And then we have '...and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.' Believe it or not, the key here is in the word 'and'. If the passage said, 'then you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit' then it would leave us no choice but to have the gift of the Holy Spirit be in succession to the last command mentioned, which is baptism. But it doesn't say 'then'. It says 'and' (Yes, I know the NLT says 'then' and I think the NLT translators screwed it up majorly when they did that). When the text says, 'and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, it implies that the Spirit can come at any point during any of the previous commands mentioned, even repentance. It doesn't have to be the continual succession to all of the commands listed in the sentence. It doesn't have to be after baptism, because we are logically able to use the text to say that we can receive the gift of the Spirit after either of these commands.

Notice that it doesn't say exactly when we receive the gift of the Spirit. It only says we shall receive it. Why should this absolutely have to occur at baptism when it could also possibly occur earlier than that, at repentance?

Trust me, you'll get it when you look at it for long enough. Don't give up! http://bibleforums.org/images/smilies/cool.gif


God Bless!! http://bibleforums.org/images/smilies/hug.gif

BadDog
Oct 12th 2005, 02:56 PM
I have been involved in a study of EIS and its relation to ACTS 2:38. Thus far I have not found any compelling evidence to suggest that it means "because of" in that context (or any). Most of the opinion I have recieved from that point of view is shaped by doctrinal belief and not intellectual study. Any thoughts?Was doing a forum search and ran across this thread.

Look up Acts 2:38 in www.bible.org. The NET Bible has a great, balanced note on the use of EIS.

BD

literaryjoe
Oct 12th 2005, 09:06 PM
to follow up on BadDog's post:

Peter said to them, "Repent, and each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:38 NET)

Translation note(s):
82
The verb is a third person imperative, but the common translation "let each of you be baptized" obscures the imperative force in English, since it sounds more like a permissive ("each of you may be baptized") to the average English reader.

84
There is debate over the meaning of εἰς in the prepositional phrase εἰς ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ὑμῶν (eis aphesin tōn hamartiōn humōn, "for/because of/with reference to the forgiveness of your sins"). Although a causal sense has been argued, it is difficult to maintain here. ExSyn 369-71 discusses at least four other ways of dealing with the passage: (1) The baptism referred to here is physical only, and εἰς has the meaning of "for" or "unto." Such a view suggests that salvation is based on works--an idea that runs counter to the theology of Acts, namely: (a) repentance often precedes baptism (cf. Act_3:19; Act_26:20), and (b) salvation is entirely a gift of God, not procured via water baptism (Act_10:43 [cf. Act_10:47]; Act_13:38-39; Act_13:48; Act_15:11; Act_16:30-31; Act_20:21; Act_26:18); (2) The baptism referred to here is spiritual only. Although such a view fits well with the theology of Acts, it does not fit well with the obvious meaning of "baptism" in Acts--especially in this text (cf. Act_2:41); (3) The text should be repunctuated in light of the shift from second person plural to third person singular back to second person plural again. The idea then would be, "Repent for/with reference to your sins, and let each one of you be baptized..." Such a view is an acceptable way of handling εἰς, but its subtlety and awkwardness count against it; (4) Finally, it is possible that to a first-century Jewish audience (as well as to Peter), the idea of baptism might incorporate both the spiritual reality and the physical symbol. That Peter connects both closely in his thinking is clear from other passages such as Act_10:47 and Act_11:15-16. If this interpretation is correct, then Act_2:38 is saying very little about the specific theological relationship between the symbol and the reality, only that historically they were viewed together. One must look in other places for a theological analysis. For further discussion see R. N. Longenecker, "Acts," EBC 9:283-85; B. Witherington, Acts, 154-55; F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary, 129-30; BDAG 290 s.εἰς 4.f.

85
Here the genitive τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος (tou hagiou pneumatos) is a genitive of apposition; the gift consists of the Holy Spirit.





Scripture Quoted By Permission.

Quotations Designated (NET) Are From The NET Bible(R)
Copyright (c) 2003 by Biblical Studies Press, L.L.C.

www.netbible.com (http://www.netbible.com)

All Rights Reserved

Jesusinmyheart
Oct 12th 2005, 10:07 PM
I couldn't tell you why, but i have viewed the 'and be baptized' in a purely spiritual manner anymore.

It's as the same to me as if Jesus would have said 'repent, and be healed'.... or 'repent, and be clean'

After all this is saying be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, IOW be baptized in the name of the Word.... so what are we being baptized with, the word or water ? Which has the power to cleanse us spiritually ? Water can clean our bodies, but not our soul, heart, and mind, that is something only the Word of God can do.

Kahtar
Oct 12th 2005, 10:15 PM
Can I ask a dumb question? I am, uh, 'acronymically challenged', and don't have a clue what EIS is.:dunno:

Jesusinmyheart
Oct 12th 2005, 10:29 PM
Erm, Kahtar, i think it's not an acronym, but an actual greek word....took me a minute to figure out. :rolleyes:

Kahtar
Oct 12th 2005, 10:32 PM
:o :huh: . Oh. Guess I'm Greek challenged as well.:lol:

dabilljon
Oct 12th 2005, 11:33 PM
Acts 2:38 deals with Peter preaching to the Jews, telling them what they must do as a nation to get right with God. It has nothing to do with the salvation of the soul as compared to Paul telling the Philippian jailor to "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved."

Teke
Oct 13th 2005, 12:33 AM
I have been involved in a study of EIS and its relation to ACTS 2:38. Thus far I have not found any compelling evidence to suggest that it means "because of" in that context (or any). Most of the opinion I have recieved from that point of view is shaped by doctrinal belief and not intellectual study. Any thoughts?


In relation to baptism.


from the Companion bible

"BAPTIZE", "BAPTISM", ETC.

It will be useful for the student to have a complete and classified list of the various usages of these words in the N.T.; the following conspectus has been prepared, so that the reader may be in a position to draw his own conclusions.

I. The VERB baptizo occurs eighty (*1) times, as follows :

i. In its absolute form, or followed by a noun in the accusative case. See Matt. 3:16; 20:22, 23. Mark 6:14; 10:38, 39; 16:16. Luke 3:12, 21; 7:29; 12:50. John 1:25, 28; 3:22, 23, 26; 4:1, 2; 10:40. Acts 2:41; 8:12, 13, 36, 38; 9:18; 10:47; 16:15, 33; 18:8; 19:4; 22:16. 1Cor. 1:14, 16, 17.

ii. With the Dative case (implying element) : Luke 3:16. Acts 1:5; 11:16.

iii. With en (Ap. 104. viii), denoting
1. The element, described as being
a. Water. Matt. 3:11. Mark 1:8. John 1:26, 31, 33.
b. Pneuma hagion. (see Ap. 101. II. 14) Matt. 3:11. Mark 1.8.
Luke 3:16. John 1:33. Acts 1:5; 11:16. 1Cor. 12:13 (*).
c. The name of the Lord. Acts 10:48.
d. The cloud and sea. 1Cor. 10:2 (*).
2. The locality. Matt. 3:6 (*). Mark 1:4, 5 (*). John 3:23.

iv. With eis (Ap. 104. vi). Matt. 28:19. Mark 1:9 (*). Acts 8:16; 19:3, 5.
Rom. 6:3. 1Cor. 1:13,15; 10:2 (*); 12:13 (*). Gal. 3:27.

v. With epi (Ap. 104. ix). Acts 2:38 (with Dative)

vi. With huper (Ap. 104. xvii). 1Cor. 15:29.

vii. With hupo (Ap. 104. xviii). Matt. 3:6 (*), 13, 14. Mark 1:5, 9 (*).
Luke 3:7; 7:30.

viii. Translated "wash". Mark 7:4. Luke 11:38.

II. The NOUNS.

i. Baptisma. Occurs twenty-two times, as follows :

1. General. Matt. 20:22, 23. Mark 10:38, 39. Luke 12:50. Rom. 6:4.
Eph. 4:5. Col. 2:12. 1Pet. 3:21.
2. John's baptism. Matt. 3:7; 21:25. Mark 1:4; 11:30. Luke 3:3; 7:29; 20:4.
Acts 1:22; 10:37; 13:24; 18:25; 19:3, 4.

ii. Baptismos. Occurs four times :

1. Translated "washing". Matt 7:4, 8. Heb. 9:10
2. Translated "baptisms". Heb. 6:2.

(*) In the five passages thus marked, the verb is followed by two phrases, and therefore appears under two heads. They are : Matt. 3:6. Mark 1:5, 9. 1Cor. 10:2; 12:13.


and to prepostitions


ix. epi governs three cases (the Genitive, Dative, and Accusative), and denotes superposition.

1. With the Genitive it denotes upon, as proceeding or springing from, and answers to the question "Where?" (e.g. Matt. 9:2; 10:27. Mark 8:4. Luke 22:30. John 6:21).

With the idea of locality it conveys the sense, in the presence of (e.g. Matt. 28:14. Mark 13:9. Acts 24:19. 1Cor. 6:1).

With the idea of time, it looks backward and upward, e.g. "in the days of" (Matt. 1:11. Heb. 1:2).

With the idea of place, it denotes dignity and power (e.g. Matt. 23:2. Acts 12:21. Rom. 9:5. Rev. 2:26).

More on prepositions here
http://www.angelfire.com/nv/TheOliveBranch/append104.htm

BHS
Oct 13th 2005, 01:47 AM
Please read my original post. I appreciate your opinion and your reference to other scripture, however, I am looking for a more intellectual point of view concerning language, word def., and word usage. Using doctrine to establish Scripture is dangerous. We should use Scripture to establish doctrine. Thank you for the reply.

AMEN Brother!

I like the way you approach the Scripture.

Blessings,

BHS

BadDog
Oct 14th 2005, 01:57 PM
Can I ask a dumb question? I am, uh, 'acronymically challenged', and don't have a clue what EIS is.:dunno:The only dumb question is the one that isn't asked for fear you'll look dumb. :P

EIS is a preposition, typically meaning"in, into, unto." It does not mean "on" (EN is recerved for that.)

If you're talking about place, then it typically means "into" or even "to."

If you're talking about time, then it can mean "to, up to, until," though that is not as common.

If you're talking about a measure or limit or relation, then it means "as far as, as much as, to, towards, in regard to."

In Acts 2:38 it must be the 3rd option above - "in regard to."

Acts 2:38 "Repent," Peter said to them, "and be baptized, each of you, in the name of Jesus the Messiah for ("in regard to") the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

IOW, repent and be baptized "in regard to" the forgiveness of sins and you will receive the Holy Spirit.

IMO this does not say that repenting and being baptized necessarily is the means of receiving the forgiveness of sins, though that is certainly possible. The NET note says that the "baptism" refers to both SPirit baptism as well as water baptism.

BD

JollyRoger1970
Oct 15th 2005, 06:21 PM
In the religious world today there is much controversy over the subject of baptism. Some believe it is necessary to obedience and one may not refuse to submit, but it is not essential to our becoming a child of God. Others believe it is not necessary at all while others believe it is a prerequisite in becoming a Christian.
What Do The Scriptures Say?
Peter was asked by the those assembled on Pentecost, "What should we do?" (Acts 2:37). He replied, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38). The expression, "for the remission of sins" is literally "into (to, unto, with a view to) the remission of sins." Also note that inspiration puts (1) repent and (2) baptism before (3) "remission of sins."
Argument Over The Word "For"
Some in the religious world argue that the word "for" before "remission of sins" is translated from the Greek word "eis" and means "because of." In other words, one is to repent and be baptized "because" his sins have already been forgiven.
First, that would be a strange interpretation putting repentance after one becomes a Christian rather than before. Can one be saved without repentance (Luke 13:3,5; Luke 24:47; Acts 17:30-31)? Secondly, it is also interesting that Jesus himself tied baptism with belief (faith) in Mark 16:16. He also put "saved" after both belief and baptism. If one is saved before repentance and baptism, then the same would hold true of belief (faith) in Mark 16:16. Is one saved before he believes that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God?
The Greek Expression "Eis" And A Similar Passage
Does the Greek expression "eis", rendered "for" in Acts 2:38 mean "because of?" If the expression means one is already saved before he repents and is baptized, it would have that meaning in other passages where it is used. If it does not mean that in other passages, it cannot mean that in Acts 2:38.
When Jesus instituted His supper, he stated in the latter part of Matthew 26:28, "For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." Who will argue that we are saved before Jesus shed his blood (Hebrews 9:22)? If the expression, "for the remission of sins" means one is saved before what is described prior to the expression in Acts 2:38, then that interpretation must also apply in Matthew 26:28. It would make Jesus saying His blood was shed for many because their sins were already forgiven. Just think, you and I were saved before Jesus shed His blood! If we were, then we were saved by something other than the blood of Jesus!
Conclusion
If the phrase "for the remission of sins" in Matthew 26:28 means Jesus' blood was shed "in order" that you and I might receive the remission of our sins, then the same expression in Acts 2:38 means you and I repent and are baptized "in order" to receive the remission of sins.

JollyRoger1970
Oct 15th 2005, 10:34 PM
Acts 2:38 deals with Peter preaching to the Jews, telling them what they must do as a nation to get right with God. It has nothing to do with the salvation of the soul as compared to Paul telling the Philippian jailor to "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved."

In Romans 10:13-14 we have:

13for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." 14How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?


We must point out that this verse shows clearly that calling upon the name of the Lord is not the same thing as believing in the Lord. Calling upon the Lord is clearly dependent in this verse upon believing first. Notice the progression: 1) preaching, 2) hearing 3) believing 4) calling, 5) salvation.

Many people assume that calling upon the name of the Lord is simply professing faith in Christ, but this is not what the scriptures SAY that it is. In Acts 22:16 we have this:

16And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.'


It is not insignificant that the same author of the book of Romans is the one who is speaking in Acts 22-Paul the apostle. Should we not respect the very terms which the author defined for us? How did he define "calling upon the name of the Lord?" Simple. "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins." This is the process that occurs after belief (as indicated in Romans 10), but before salvation to which one must submit to be saved.

Now turning to Acts 2:21 we find the same process. Peter quotes Joel's prophecy which said,


And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

The verses which tells us where these were saved will also tell us where these called upon the name of the Lord-Acts 2:38-41.

38Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call."
40With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, "Save yourselves from this corrupt generation." 41Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.


The conclusion is that they were saved when they were baptized which must be the act of calling upon the name of the Lord. Calling upon the name of the Lord is no more nor no less than being baptized for the remission of sins and is what all of humanity is called to do to enjoy salvation.

dabilljon
Oct 16th 2005, 05:22 AM
I'll offer you 500 bucks if you can show me where in Acts chapter 2 there is ANY mention of anybody dying for anybody's sins. It's not there. The gospel of Jesus dying for sins and raising from the dead and salvation by his grace doesn't show up until Paul. Water baptism doesn't save you.
However, the baptism of the holy spirit will. That comes the MOMENT you accept Christ through prayer. Water baptism is nothing but a public confession that you are one of his.

JollyRoger1970
Oct 16th 2005, 08:19 AM
I'll offer you 500 bucks if you can show me where in Acts chapter 2 there is ANY mention of anybody dying for anybody's sins. It's not there. The gospel of Jesus dying for sins and raising from the dead and salvation by his grace doesn't show up until Paul. Water baptism doesn't save you.
However, the baptism of the holy spirit will. That comes the MOMENT you accept Christ through prayer. Water baptism is nothing but a public confession that you are one of his.



For us to know the truth on various spiritual issues we need to study the entire Bible, not just one verse or one chapter or one book. Jesus himself said that if we hold to His teachings, we will know the truth and the truth will set us free.(John 8:31-32)

The Psalmist wrote "The sum of thy word is truth"(Psalm 119:160). We absolutely must take all of what the Bible teaches on a given topic if we want to know the Truth.

For illustration, let us study Peter cutting off the ear of Malchus in the Garden of Gethsemane. When reading Matthew's account, we learn only that ". . . one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off his ear" (Matthew 26:51).

We must turn to Luke to learn that the one with Jesus ". . . cut off his right ear" and that Jesus "touched his ear, and healed him"(Luke 22:50-51).

But neither Matthew nor Luke tells us that it was "Simon Peter having a sword" and that "the servant's name was Malchus" (John 18:10).

If I fail to take into account any of these passages, then I fail to have the Truth of what happened there in the garden. I can certainly make true statements from reading only one of them. For example, I could say truthfully, "Malchus had his ear cut off." But I would be wrong if I said, "it just cannot be the case that Malchus had his right ear cut off because Matthew says only that his ear was cut off." The error is mine because I would have failed to take all of the relevant scriptures into consideration.

The same principle applies to baptism, repentance, works, confession, and any other topic we might name. That being the case, if we study Acts 2 along with a host of other New Testament passages we can clearly know that baptism is indeed a requirement for salvation along with genuine belief and repentance. Please re-read my previous two posts for some elaboration on this topic.

pnewton
Oct 16th 2005, 01:25 PM
I have never seen so much "eis"-egisis on one topic.

(nerd joke):lol:

dabilljon
Oct 16th 2005, 04:39 PM
For us to know the truth on various spiritual issues we need to study the entire Bible, not just one verse or one chapter or one book. Jesus himself said that if we hold to His teachings, we will know the truth and the truth will set us free.(John 8:31-32)

The Psalmist wrote "The sum of thy word is truth"(Psalm 119:160). We absolutely must take all of what the Bible teaches on a given topic if we want to know the Truth.

For illustration, let us study Peter cutting off the ear of Malchus in the Garden of Gethsemane. When reading Matthew's account, we learn only that ". . . one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off his ear" (Matthew 26:51).

We must turn to Luke to learn that the one with Jesus ". . . cut off his right ear" and that Jesus "touched his ear, and healed him"(Luke 22:50-51).

But neither Matthew nor Luke tells us that it was "Simon Peter having a sword" and that "the servant's name was Malchus" (John 18:10).

If I fail to take into account any of these passages, then I fail to have the Truth of what happened there in the garden. I can certainly make true statements from reading only one of them. For example, I could say truthfully, "Malchus had his ear cut off." But I would be wrong if I said, "it just cannot be the case that Malchus had his right ear cut off because Matthew says only that his ear was cut off." The error is mine because I would have failed to take all of the relevant scriptures into consideration.

The same principle applies to baptism, repentance, works, confession, and any other topic we might name. That being the case, if we study Acts 2 along with a host of other New Testament passages we can clearly know that baptism is indeed a requirement for salvation along with genuine belief and repentance. Please re-read my previous two posts for some elaboration on this topic.
Again, my offer still stands. That was the Jews that Peter was talking to at Pentecost. The gospel that Paul preached, the gospel of Jesus Christ dying for sins and raising from the dead and salvation by grace through faith doesn't show up UNTIL Paul shows up.
Water baptism is NOT necessary for salvation. It was necessary for Israel as a show of repentance for crucifying their Messiah. Again, you've got to "rightly divide the word of truth."

literaryjoe
Oct 16th 2005, 06:36 PM
I'll offer you 500 bucks if you can show me where in Acts chapter 2 there is ANY mention of anybody dying for anybody's sins. It's not there. The gospel of Jesus dying for sins and raising from the dead and salvation by his grace doesn't show up until Paul. Water baptism doesn't save you.
However, the baptism of the holy spirit will. That comes the MOMENT you accept Christ through prayer. Water baptism is nothing but a public confession that you are one of his."Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know-- this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death (for Jesus and for us), because it was not possible for him to be held by it. For David says concerning him, "'I saw the Lord always before me, for he is at my right hand that I may not be shaken; therefore my heart was glad, and my tongue rejoiced; my flesh also will dwell in hope (of deliverance). For you will not abandon my soul to Hades, or let your Holy One see corruption. (Acts 2:22-27 ESV)

This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses. Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing. (Acts 2:32-33 ESV)

And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins (as a result of the resurrected Son of God, having received the rpomise of the Holy Spirit, by virtue of having died for our sins and being resurrected), and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:38 ESV)

Private message me and I'll give you my Paypal account number so that you can pay up.

literaryjoe
Oct 16th 2005, 06:40 PM
Again, my offer still stands. That was the Jews that Peter was talking to at Pentecost. The gospel that Paul preached, the gospel of Jesus Christ dying for sins and raising from the dead and salvation by grace through faith doesn't show up UNTIL Paul shows up.
Water baptism is NOT necessary for salvation. It was necessary for Israel as a show of repentance for crucifying their Messiah. Again, you've got to "rightly divide the word of truth."
Parthians and Medes and Elamites and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians--we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God." Acts 2:9-11 (ESV)It's a mixture of Jews, Gentiles, and Gentile proselytes being addressed. I'll be waiting for your private message so that you can fulfill your offer.

Teke
Oct 16th 2005, 08:43 PM
Again, my offer still stands. That was the Jews that Peter was talking to at Pentecost. The gospel that Paul preached, the gospel of Jesus Christ dying for sins and raising from the dead and salvation by grace through faith doesn't show up UNTIL Paul shows up.
Water baptism is NOT necessary for salvation. It was necessary for Israel as a show of repentance for crucifying their Messiah. Again, you've got to "rightly divide the word of truth."


I agree it is in Pauls letters that we see this way of putting it (dying for sins). Scripture is clear no one dies for anothers sins. I believe Peter said it correctly in Acts 2:22-27 (see literary joes post #28). That agrees with the rest of scripture. Dying for sins means death, and Jesus conquered death by death with life.

Water baptism is not necessary for salvation, but it is part of the entrance into the priesthood, which is also part of acceptance of Him.

Literary Joe I believe Peter is addressing the dispersed of Israel, as he states "men of Israel". That they were from other areas only enforces that. This is a fulfillment of His gathering Israel to Himself.

literaryjoe
Oct 16th 2005, 10:32 PM
I agree it is in Pauls letters that we see this way of putting it (dying for sins). Scripture is clear no one dies for anothers sins. I believe Peter said it correctly in Acts 2:22-27 (see literary joes post #28). That agrees with the rest of scripture. Dying for sins means death, and Jesus conquered death by death with life.

Water baptism is not necessary for salvation, but it is part of the entrance into the priesthood, which is also part of acceptance of Him.

Literary Joe I believe Peter is addressing the dispersed of Israel, as he states "men of Israel". That they were from other areas only enforces that. This is a fulfillment of His gathering Israel to Himself.One might try to interpret the various regions mentioned as being locations where Jews of the dispersion lived if it weren't for the phrase, "both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians", which makes it evident that Gentiles are part of those listening, being addressed and coming into the kingdom.

Scripture is not clear that "no one dies for anothers sins". In point of actual fact, it is emphatic about the exact opposite. Messiah died for the sins of the world. That is another thread, however, and I'm quite certain that your comment is not what dabilljon had in mind anyway.

Teke, I would appreciate it if you would stop making this statement or claim. It is categorically in opposition to one of the very foundations of Protestant faith (indeed of Christian faith), and as such ought not to be asserted on this board.

Ritual cleansing, as I have explained before, was indicative of any significant change in state (whether mental or physical), and was practised by all Israelites, not just the priesthood. In repenting from one's sins (turning away) one indicated the status change from turned toward sin to turned away from sin, and at the same time underwent a ceremonial cleansing. The practice was so common that there literally were mikvah pools all over the place: great numbers in the Temple complex, they are even found in 1st century homes.

If one changed state from single to married, you ritually immersed (mikvah, baptism). If one was healed of leprosy, a ritual immersion was proscribed. If one touched the carcass of an animal, if a woman finished her monthly flow, when taking or ending a Nazarite vow, etc., etc.

dabilljon
Oct 17th 2005, 06:37 AM
It's a mixture of Jews, Gentiles, and Gentile proselytes being addressed. I'll be waiting for your private message so that you can fulfill your offer.
It's true that there were Gentiles THERE but who was Peter speaking to? Verse 37 has the Jews asking Peter "What shall we DO?" not to get saved!!!!! Rather, what shall we do as a nation in view of the fact that we crucified our Messiah? We, as Gentiles, didn't crucify our messiah. We don't even HAVE a messiah! The JEWS DO!!
So, when the Jews asked "What shall we do?", he said to get dunked in water and repent from your evil way. Then, and only then, will you get saved. That was then, UNTIL Paul came along. Galatians 1:11,12 says, "But I certify unto you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I TAUGHT it, but by the REVELATION of JESUS CHRIST." This is called the Pauline Revelation, contrary to the "gospel" preached at Acts 2.
Acts 2 verse 22 tells you WHO he's talking to- "Ye men of ISRAEL." Peter tells them that they had killed their Messiah, but instead he had rose again. But salvation of the soul is NOT the context of the chapter. The context is a nation confronted with the facts. Paul never tells anybody to get baptized for the remission of sins. The gospel that was REVEALED to Paul was a new "REVELATION" from God that now could include the Gentiles being saved by grace THROUGH FAITH, not WORKS (baptism).
Peter's efforts at Pentecost was to usher in the literal physical kingdom of heaven, not the kingdom of God!

pnewton
Oct 17th 2005, 11:50 AM
This is called the Pauline Revelation, contrary to the "gospel" preached at Acts 2.
......But salvation of the soul is NOT the context of the chapter. Are you saying that what the disciples taught was not the same gospel that Paul taught? If so, why would you be dismissive of those who spent 3 years walking with God (some of which we have recorded in the Bible) over this so-called "Pauline Revelation."

I do not think I would be quick to cut and paste Galations 1 into Pentacost. Paul does not the doctrine of his revelation in Galations, he is only defending his authority to preach.

We do know of one revelation he received from Jesus. In this he was converted. Since this was "not from man" why couldn't this revelation fit the bill instead of assuming a second revelation in which he received a gospel contray to what was preached in Acts?

Teke
Oct 17th 2005, 01:34 PM
Scripture is not clear that "no one dies for anothers sins". In point of actual fact, it is emphatic about the exact opposite. Messiah died for the sins of the world. That is another thread, however, and I'm quite certain that your comment is not what dabilljon had in mind anyway.

Teke, I would appreciate it if you would stop making this statement or claim. It is categorically in opposition to one of the very foundations of Protestant faith (indeed of Christian faith), and as such ought not to be asserted on this board.

Ritual cleansing, as I have explained before, was indicative of any significant change in state (whether mental or physical), and was practised by all Israelites, not just the priesthood. In repenting from one's sins (turning away) one indicated the status change from turned toward sin to turned away from sin, and at the same time underwent a ceremonial cleansing. The practice was so common that there literally were mikvah pools all over the place: great numbers in the Temple complex, they are even found in 1st century homes.

If one changed state from single to married, you ritually immersed (mikvah, baptism). If one was healed of leprosy, a ritual immersion was proscribed. If one touched the carcass of an animal, if a woman finished her monthly flow, when taking or ending a Nazarite vow, etc., etc.

Well isn't that the point of the thread? To find if baptism is a magical formula for salvation. Maybe it's me, but this seems like a double standard of some kind.

Most on this thread agree baptism does not save. So how did Jesus die for the sins of the world? Isn't that just another way of saying the same thing as with baptism. A trade by acts/works. Or did He conquer death by His death and bring life. That is not trading, that is victory. Don't christians believe He brought victory over death. How is that contrary?

IMO this hasn't been explained well enough. But that is not what this thread is about. And Ezekial has a whole chapter on how one cannot pay for anothers sins. Either that is true or it is not.

literaryjoe
Oct 17th 2005, 01:43 PM
It's true that there were Gentiles THERE but who was Peter speaking to? Verse 37 has the Jews asking Peter "What shall we DO?" not to get saved!!!!! Rather, what shall we do as a nation in view of the fact that we crucified our Messiah? We, as Gentiles, didn't crucify our messiah. We don't even HAVE a messiah! The JEWS DO!!
So, when the Jews asked "What shall we do?", he said to get dunked in water and repent from your evil way. Then, and only then, will you get saved. That was then, UNTIL Paul came along. Galatians 1:11,12 says, "But I certify unto you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I TAUGHT it, but by the REVELATION of JESUS CHRIST." This is called the Pauline Revelation, contrary to the "gospel" preached at Acts 2.
Acts 2 verse 22 tells you WHO he's talking to- "Ye men of ISRAEL." Peter tells them that they had killed their Messiah, but instead he had rose again. But salvation of the soul is NOT the context of the chapter. The context is a nation confronted with the facts. Paul never tells anybody to get baptized for the remission of sins. The gospel that was REVEALED to Paul was a new "REVELATION" from God that now could include the Gentiles being saved by grace THROUGH FAITH, not WORKS (baptism).
Peter's efforts at Pentecost was to usher in the literal physical kingdom of heaven, not the kingdom of God!Your entire premise is flawed. Were the 3,000 who were added to their number that day "saved" or not? Of course, they were. There is no dichotomy between the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God. That idea is the result of an erroneous assumption on the part of Dr. Scofield. So the "new" revelation given to Paul was somehow different than the one God gave Peter in Acts 10?

Do you know a lady who goes by the handle "Pauline", cuz were going down the exact same path...

literaryjoe
Oct 17th 2005, 02:05 PM
Well isn't that the point of the thread? To find if baptism is a magical formula for salvation. Maybe it's me, but this seems like a double standard of some kind.

Most on this thread agree baptism does not save. So how did Jesus die for the sins of the world? Isn't that just another way of saying the same thing as with baptism. A trade by acts/works. Or did He conquer death by His death and bring life. That is not trading, that is victory. Don't christians believe He brought victory over death. How is that contrary?

IMO this hasn't been explained well enough. But that is not what this thread is about. And Ezekial has a whole chapter on how one cannot pay for anothers sins. Either that is true or it is not.Claiming that there is or was no substitutionary/sacrificial atonement, does not equate to trying to figure out whether baptism is somehow involved in the "saving" process (I don't believe it is, by the way). So, yes, it's you, because there is no double standard.

Jesus died for the sins of the world because, "he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed." (Isaiah 53:5 ESV) Either it's true or it isn't.

For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died; and he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised. ... For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. (2 Corinthians 5:14-15, 21 ESV)


He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed. (1 Peter 2:24 ESV)


For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, (1 Peter 3:18 ESV)


For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. (Romans 8:3-4 ESV)

But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it-- the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. (Romans 3:21-25 ESV)The idea (as Albert Barnes suggests) that the substitution is, "an arrangement by which the literal infliction of the penalty due to sin may be avoided; it is something which may be substituted in the place of punishment.", simply cannot be supported by Scripture.

P.S. Is anyone else having problems with the new system splitting your quotes into more than one, when you did not draft it that way?

JollyRoger1970
Dec 2nd 2008, 01:28 AM
I have never seen so much "eis"-egisis on one topic.

(nerd joke):lol:

Good one! Thanks for lightening the mood. :-)

bennie
Dec 2nd 2008, 02:09 AM
Can I ask a dumb question? I am, uh, 'acronymically challenged', and don't have a clue what EIS is.:dunno:


shoo.... I thought i was the only one:lol:

JollyRoger1970
Aug 2nd 2009, 01:33 AM
"Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know-- this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death (for Jesus and for us), because it was not possible for him to be held by it. For David says concerning him, "'I saw the Lord always before me, for he is at my right hand that I may not be shaken; therefore my heart was glad, and my tongue rejoiced; my flesh also will dwell in hope (of deliverance). For you will not abandon my soul to Hades, or let your Holy One see corruption. (Acts 2:22-27 ESV)

This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses. Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing. (Acts 2:32-33 ESV)

And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins (as a result of the resurrected Son of God, having received the rpomise of the Holy Spirit, by virtue of having died for our sins and being resurrected), and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:38 ESV)

Private message me and I'll give you my Paypal account number so that you can pay up.


Has he paid up yet?

quiet dove
Aug 2nd 2009, 07:02 PM
We have resurrected an old one here, so I am going to close it. :) We can start another on the topic if you want to.