Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

EIS and baptism

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • EIS and baptism

    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?

  • #2
    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.
    WDJD - what DID Jesus do

    He died on a cross for our sin and rose from the dead,
    securing, for all who believe, eternal life and forgiveness of sin

    Toolman

    Comment


    • #3
      already read this

      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.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by mlh647
        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!


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

        But wait!
        What if a person believes but isn't baptized?
        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!

        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.


        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.

        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.





        Good night.
        God Bless!!

        Comment


        • #5
          original post

          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.

          Comment


          • #6
            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.
            Last edited by theabaud; Dec 2nd 2004, 04:49 PM.

            Comment


            • #7
              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

              Comment


              • #8
                hmmmmm

                thank you for the responses.....I am not yet convinced of anything. Anything more?

                Comment


                • #9
                  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.

                  - 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!!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    ha

                    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?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by mlh647
                      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!


                      God Bless!!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by mlh647
                        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
                        3 John 4 - "No greater joy can I have than this, to hear that my [spiritual] children walk in the truth.

                        BadDog!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          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.
                          All Rights Reserved

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            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.
                            Jer 6:16 Thus says the Lord: Stand at the crossroads, and look, and ask for the ancient paths, where the good way lies; and walk in it, and find rest for your souls.
                            2Jn 1:9 Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.
                            If it's not done out of unselfish love, then it's hardly righteous.
                            http://disciple2yeshua.wordpress.com/



                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Can I ask a dumb question? I am, uh, 'acronymically challenged', and don't have a clue what EIS is.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X