Jeesh, Here's Another New One....

[phatcatholic]

[list]
[*]"The immediacy of the baptism command and the wording of verse 38 was largely responsible for the doctrine of "baptismal regeneration" being adopted and taught by the Roman Catholic Church. This doctrine insists that baptism is a necessary and integral part of salvation. Their interpretation of the wording of verse 38, where it says ‘…and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of and release from your sins…", is that baptism actually secures forgiveness of and release from sins. Therefore baptism is to be administered as soon as possible after one professes faith in Christ—because if death occurs prior to baptism, they will still be in their sins. While this interpretation is certainly possible due to the sentence construction, it does not conform to the demands of systematic theology in that other Scripture proves it to be invalid. And as is usually the case, another interpretation of this particular verse is possible (and preferred). For example, if I say, "The man was arrested for arson". Was he arrested in order to receive arson? Why, of course not! He was arrested because of the crime of arson. This simple illustration serves to show that the word "for" in Acts 2:38 does not necessarily mean "in order to receive". It can also mean "because of" - and in this case, most assuredly does. We are commanded to submit to baptism as an act of identification with Christ because we have received forgiveness of and release from our sins. Also the Greek preposition "eis", rendered "for" in verse 38 is an indefinite preposition of reference and is open to more than one interpretation. If the Holy Spirit had intended that the meaning be "in order to receive", the Greek word "hina" would possibly have been more appropriate."
[/list]good grief, i think i've heard it all now. this seems utterly absurd, but right off hand i'm not sure how to prove why. i'm mostly concerned w/ this person's treatment of the word "for."

your thoughts?

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[Luthien]

Its like Clinton and the word "is"...

[qfnol31]

What are they arguing? I'm kinda lost, but I can kinda see some things wrong with that.

[StColette]

I'm with Zach i'm a little confused on what point they are trying to make.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Jul 13 2004, 12:12 AM'][list]



[*]"The immediacy of the baptism command and the wording of verse 38 was largely responsible for the doctrine of "baptismal regeneration" being adopted and taught by the Roman Catholic Church. This doctrine insists that baptism is a necessary and integral part of salvation. Their interpretation of the wording of verse 38, where it says ‘…and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of and release from your sins…", is that baptism actually secures forgiveness of and release from sins. Therefore baptism is to be administered as soon as possible after one professes faith in Christ—because if death occurs prior to baptism, they will still be in their sins. While this interpretation is certainly possible due to the sentence construction, it does not conform to the demands of systematic theology in that other Scripture proves it to be invalid. And as is usually the case, another interpretation of this particular verse is possible (and preferred). For example, if I say, "The man was arrested for arson". Was he arrested in order to receive arson? Why, of course not! He was arrested because of the crime of arson. This simple illustration serves to show that the word "for" in Acts 2:38 does not necessarily mean "in order to receive". It can also mean "because of" - and in this case, most assuredly does. We are commanded to submit to baptism as an act of identification with Christ because we have received forgiveness of and release from our sins. Also the Greek preposition "eis", rendered "for" in verse 38 is an indefinite preposition of reference and is open to more than one interpretation. If the Holy Spirit had intended that the meaning be "in order to receive", the Greek word "hina" would possibly have been more appropriate."



[/list]good grief, i think i've heard it all now. this seems utterly absurd, but right off hand i'm not sure how to prove why. i'm mostly concerned w/ this person's treatment of the word "for."

your thoughts?

pax christi,
phatcatholic[/quote]
Phatcatholic,

Your opponent's interpretation of this text is nonsensical, both contextually and grammatically. In order to understand the context of verse 38, one needs to look at the speech given by Peter and in particular at the reaction of the crowd to it, and that can be done by looking at the verse before the one in question, which says, "Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, '[b][i]Brethren, what shall we do[/i][/b]?'" [Acts 2:37] Clearly, these men are ignorant of what needs to be done now that they have heard what Peter had to say about Christ, so how can they have already been forgiven if they don't even know what they need to do. You will notice that those listening to Peter's preaching don't say, "Brethren, we already been forgiven, thanks for telling us about Jesus." No, they ask what they need to do in order to be forgiven, and what does Peter tell them? He says, "[b][i]Repent, and be baptized[/i][/b] every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ [b][i]for[/i][/b] (eis) the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." [Acts 2:38] Notice that Peter doesn't say, "Repent, and read the Bible, because your sins have already been forgiven," nor does he say, "Repent, and believe, because you've already been forgiven," and in fact to even propose this idea is ludicrous, because if they have already been forgiven, then it follows that they don't need to repent. Repentance logically precedes forgiveness, it doesn't follow it. In addition, if we applied your opponent's faulty reasoning to other verses, various nonsensical constructions result. As an example lets look at the Last Supper narrative in the Gospel of Matthew, in that pericope Jesus says in reference to the cup, "Drink of it, all of you; for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many [b][i]for[/i][/b] (eis) the forgiveness of sins." Now, if we followed the grammatical acrobatics of your opponent, this would have to be translated so that Jesus says, "Drink of it, all of you; for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many [b][i]because their sins are already forgiven[/i][/b]." This puts the cart before the horse. Why would Jesus even have to die if people's sins are already forgiven, this makes no sense, and so applying your opponent's views to this verse shows just how important it is to keep the context of a Biblical pericope in mind. It is also important to note, that no credible English version of the Bible translates the word "eis" in Acts 2:38 as "because of," and the only reason to translate the text in that way is not based on the Greek grammatical construction of the verse; instead, such a need arises only if one approaches the text with a theological presupposition foreign to scripture itself, i.e., a presupposition that rejects baptismal regeneration, and which holds that the sacrament of baptism is unimportant. Finally, Acts 2:41 indicates that, ". . . those who received his [i.e., Peter's] word [b][i] were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls[/i][/b]." Thus, by being baptized three thousand persons were added to the Lord, and this incorporation into Christ was achieved through the sacrament of baptism, which brought those persons into a covenantal relationship with God in Christ.

Edited July 13, 2004 by Apotheoun

[Guest JeffCR07]

Well anyone could have told him [i]that[/i].....

....
....




That was a pretty solid response Apotheoun.

[cmotherofpirl]

Very nice

[qfnol31]

I was just cruisin' around early this morning (right after Todd has posted) and saw this. I didn't even understand the first argument! I was like "I feel stupid."

[phatcatholic]

Apotheoun,

thanks man, that was what i was looking for. i do however have one more question. how do i respond to his claim that "eis" is open to more than one interpretation and that "hina" would have been a more appropriate word? here are his words:

[quote]Also the Greek preposition "eis", rendered "for" in verse 38 is an indefinite preposition of reference and is open to more than one interpretation. If the Holy Spirit had intended that the meaning be "in order to receive", the Greek word "hina" would possibly have been more appropriate."[/quote]

also, how did you know that the verse from Matthew used the same word "eis"? i'm still new to using Greek and Hebrew lexicons in my apologetics.

thanks bro,
phatcatholic

Edited July 13, 2004 by phatcatholic

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Jul 13 2004, 12:01 PM'] Apotheoun,

thanks man, that was what i was looking for. i do however have one more question. how do i respond to his claim that "eis" is open to more than one interpretation and that "hina" would have been a more appropriate word? here are his words:



also, how did you know that the verse from Matthew used the same word "eis"? i'm still new to using Greek and Hebrew lexicons in my apologetics.

thanks bro,
phatcatholic [/quote]
As far as the multiplicity of interpretations is concerned, translators do no agree with your opponent's position, and no scholarly translation of scripture translates "eis" in Acts 2:38 as "because of." Only someone with the theological presuppositions of your opponent would do that, and your opponent's so-called "translation" has no real support in the Greek text, either grammatically or contextually. Both Kittel ([u]Theological Dictionary of the New Testament[/u]) and Thayer ([u]The New Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon[/u]) indicate that the word "eis" denotes "entering into something," whether it is used in reference to a spatial, temporal, psychological, or other category, and so it conveys the meaning of going from one place, or time, or psychological state, etc., to another, and as a consequence your opponent's rather bizarre grammatical construction has no support in the text of Acts 2 itself.

I suppose, based on your opponent's rather outlandish view of the word "eis," that he would want to say that, Joseph, rather than being told by an Angel to, "Rise, take the child and his mother, and flee [b][i]to[/i][/b] (eis) Egypt," [Matthew 2:13] was instead told to, "Rise, take the child and his mother, and flee [i][b]because of[/b][/i] (eis) Egypt." The nonsense that arises from your opponent's ideological attempts to translate the Greek language in order to support his modern doctrine of forgiveness without baptism is foolish to say the least.

As far as the use of "hina" is concerned, your opponent is not proposing a valid argument, but is instead attempting an evasion. Any number of terms could have been used, but God inspired Luke to use "eis" and that should be sufficient for your opponent to concede that it is irrelevant to argue about what might have been. Regardless, the term "eis" does not mean what he is arguing that it means, and this is so not only based on the nature of the word itself, but based on the context of the passage in question.

Finally, as it concerns the example I gave from Matthew, yes, the word I highlighted is "eis" and I know this because I looked at my Greek text of Matthew's Gospel.



I've found a website that goes into greater detail on this topic than I have. I am not necessarily endorsing everything that this website has to say, but at least on this topic it gives an excellent and well documented argument against your opponent's viewpoint.

[url="http://www.centerce.org/ACTS%202%2038/Acts%202%2038Mantey.htm"]ACTS 2:38 - for the forgiveness of sins.[/url]

Edited July 13, 2004 by Apotheoun

[AnomilE]

My take is this-

The analogy given in defense of his interpretation of Acts 2:38 is a poor one because it is a statement of happening.

[quote]"The man was arrested for arson"[/quote]

The man was arrested [for the reason of] arson.

When Peter is speaking, he is giving a command, and with commands, in any language, the word "for" is used to assert the outcome of the action. Example:

"Brush your teeth for a healthy smile"
"Drive carefully for safer streets"
"Give generously for a brighter future"

See, his analogy can be used against him because you wouldn't say "You brush your teeth because you have recieved a healthy smile" That makes no sense.

What Peter gives is a command in answer to a question of how to respond to the saving message of Jesus. Once again, a clear example of taking scripture out of context.

My question is...does he attack any of the other clear scriptural foundations for baptism?
-John 3:5
-Mark 16:16
-Colossians 2: 11-12
-Acts 16:15

AnomilE

[phatcatholic]

good point anomile, welcome to phatmass!

[cmotherofpirl]

"The immediacy of the baptism command and the wording of verse 38 was largely responsible for the doctrine of "baptismal regeneration" being adopted and taught by the Roman Catholic Church"

Think about this verse. He is stating that the doctrine was something adopted after the verse, forgetting the fact that the doctrine and practice of it went on for years before the verse was even written. Practice came first, then the stuff was written down.

[MorphRC]

Lol

Apotheoun so needs that Church Scholar Ranking Now!

Apotheoun You are MIND-BLOWING Mate

[StColette]

I agree Morph