Acts 2:38 and Eis.

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

At 10:48 PM 10/14/97 +0100, Matt Bell wrote:

>MATT

>First a comment on 'eis'. There is a mountain of references in the New

>Testament where this word is used. In all the references I looked at the

>word carried the sense of moving forward, into, in. A precise breakdown is

>given by my online Bible as follows:

>

>'1519 eis {ice} a primary preposition; TDNT - 2:420,211; prep

>

>AV - into 573, to 281, unto 207, for 140, in 138, on 58, toward 29, against

>26, misc 322; 1774

>

>1) into, unto, to, towards, for, among'

>

>Perhaps a post from a Bible-Greek list I am on will sum up the position,=

 '."

>I conclude that KAI gives "repent" and "be

>baptised" the same relationship to "the remission of sins" in Acts 2:38,=

 and

>that EIS is the key to understanding that relationship.  "Repent" KAI

>(co-ordinating conjunction) "be baptized" EIS (a preposition always=

 pointing

>forward) "the remission of sins."  The purpose of baptism may be a=

 doctrinal

>discussion that is beyond this list, but the meaning of "EIS" is not."

>


TILL
Well, pardon my density, Matt, but isn't this what I have always maintained,
that "eis" pointed forward?  Hence, if the people were commanded to be
baptized EIS the remission of sins, then your claim that they were to be
baptized "as an indication" of their salvation runs completely contrary to
what you have just said above, for if Peter was merely telling them to be
baptized as an indication of their salvation, the word "eis" would be
pointing back to something that had already happened.  I assume you will
agree that no one on that day would have been saved until their sins had
been remitted.

MATT

>This would at first sight give the appearance of resolving the matter of

>whether baptism is essential to salvation beyond any reasonable doubt and,

>indeed if that is all that we had to go on then the matter would more than

>likely concluded. I have maintained in other posts that the proper

>understanding of Peter's words were that repentance was efficacious to

>salvation and baptism the sign of that salvation.=20


TILL
Now you are completely contradicting what you posted above.  "Kai" was a
coordinate conjunction that gave "repent" and "be baptized" the SAME
relationship to the "remission of sins."  If repentance was necessary for
the remission of their sins, then so was baptism, because they were both
"eis" the remission of sins.  If they were not both "eis" the remission of
sins in the sense of "pointing forward to," then "eis" in the one case
(repentance) pointed forward but in the other (baptism) pointed backwards
"as an indication" that they had already been saved.

MATT
Both are commanded by Peter but to different purposes.=20

TILL
Where do you get the "different purposes"?  You began by saying that "kai"
gave the two (repentance and baptism) the "same relationship" to the
"remission of sin." Now you are saying that they didn't have the same
relationship, that repentance was "eis" (pointing forward to) the remission
of sins but that baptism was "eis" (pointing back to) the salvation they had
obtained through their repentance. Have you ever considered that something
has to be wrong with a position that is as contradictory as you are being in
this matter?

MATT

>In stating this Farrell has implied if not stated that I am saying I know

more than >Peter, something I categorically deny.

TILL
Then stop trying to explain what Peter meant with contradictory double-talk,
and explain to us why we should not accept his statement at face value:
"Repent and be baptized EVERY ONE OF YOU for the remission of your sins."

Here's a point I haven't brought up yet, but isn't it curious that Peter
simply said "repent" in a second-person plural imperative, which was
addressed to the audience as a whole, but in the matter of baptism, he
switched to the third-person singular imperative as if he wanted to make
sure they understood that baptism was something that EVERY ONE of them had
to do?  So if anything, he emphasized baptism over repentance.  I know this
is repugnant to your theology, Matt, but you may be seeing by now that your
theology is out of step with the NT plan of salvation.

MATT
 On what grounds do I make this denial and base my proposition of what

>Peter meant by his words? Well, I want to begin a demonstration of these

>grounds by looking at a passage of Scripture almost immediately following

>Acts 2:38. It is Acts 3:11-21; 4:1-4.

>

>" 11  And as the lame man which was healed held Peter and John, all the

>people ran together unto them in the porch that is called Solomon's,=

 greatly

>wondering. 12 =B6 And when Peter saw [it], he answered unto the people, Ye

>men of Israel, why marvel ye at this? or why look ye so earnestly on us, as

>though by our own power or holiness we had made this man to walk? 13  The

>God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath

>glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the

>presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let [him] go. 14  But ye

>denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto

>you; 15  And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead;

>whereof we are witnesses. 16  And his name through faith in his name hath

>made this man strong, whom ye see and know: yea, the faith which is by him

>hath given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all.   17  And

>now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did [it], as [did] also your

>rulers.18  But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of=

 all

>his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled. 19  Repent=

 ye

>therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the

>times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; 20  And he

>shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:  21  Whom the

>heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all

> things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since

>the world began............ 1 =B6 And as they spake unto the people, the

>priests, and the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees, came upon them,=

 2

>Being grieved that they taught the people, and preached through Jesus the

>resurrection from the dead. 3  And they laid hands on them, and put [them]

>in hold unto the next day: for it was now eventide. 4  Howbeit many of them

>which heard the word believed; and the number of the men was about five

>thousand.'

>

>In this passage Peter once again preaches to a crowd. Once again he urges

>them to 'be converted'. Could Farrell please indicate what Peter told them

>to do to be converted?=20


TILL
Matt, surely you can see that the passage in Acts 3 damages your case
instead of helping it.  You want me to indicate what Peter told this crowd
to do to be converted?  He told them to repent AND (kai) be converted that
[their] sins may be blotted out.  Now according to the logic that you have
tried to apply to Acts 2:38, Peter meant that they should repent and "as an
indication" of their salvation be converted, but that is completely
nonsensical.  Salvation =3D being converted, so how could they have been
converted as an indication that they had been converted?

So what we have to do here, Matt, is let scripture interpret scripture.
You're familiar with that hermeneutic principle, aren't you?  Therefore, in
order to understand what Peter meant in this passage, we allow the clearer
text in Acts 2:38 clarify this one. In so doing, we have to conclude that
"be[ing] converted" entailed baptism.  It's unreasonable to think that Peter
would have told one audience that they had to repent and be baptized for the
remission of their sins but shortly afterwards, in the same location, he
would tell another audience something different.

I'm sorry, Matt, but you stipulated that our discussion would take place on
the assumption that what the Bible says is true, so I'm just applying your
own guidelines and standards of hermeneutics.

MATT

>Also could he point out where in the passage any mention of baptism is

mentioned?

TILL
Well, my, my, Matt, don't you know that the fact that the text doesn't
specifically mention baptism is no indication that Peter didn't stipulate
baptism as a condition of salvation on this occasion?  Luke saw fit only to
mention what is in the text, but that is not to be understood that
everything that Peter said on this occasion was recorded.  In recording
Peter's speech on the day of Pentecost, Luke chose to mention baptism as one
of the things that Peter stipulated, but in recording Peter's speech in the
next chapter, he chose not to mention baptism.  However, we know from other
clear New Testament references (already noted in other postings) that
baptism is a part of the plan of salvation; therefore, we have no reason to
assume that Peter's entire speech did not include baptismal instructions.
Peter didn't tell the audience on this occasion to believe that Jesus Christ
was the son of God, but you surely don't believe that because Peter didn't
mention this that it cannot be considered a part of the plan of salvation.

I'm sorry, Matt, but the chickens will always come home to roost.


Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.
jftill@midwest.net

• Previous message: Any xians who aren't creationists?
• Next message: Acts 2:38 and Eis.
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]