UPC doctrinal contradiction

[mental]

Originally Posted by Sam

It is my understanding that "eis" in Greek is like "for" in English.
It can mean "in order to obtain" or it can mean "because of.'

The classic example is the Wanted Poster

Wanted
Dirty Dalton for (because of) bank robbery.
See local Sheriff for (in order to obtain) reward.

We've argued that Acts 2:38 means "in order to obtain" forgiveness of sins or "because of" forgiveness of sins over and over. We've cited Greek "experts" to prove both theories.

It's safest not to create a dogma on our interpretation of one passage like Acts 2:38.

It is hard to nail down a Greek preposition like eis into one word like "for". It is quite a flexible Greek word and has a whole range of meanings. The BDAG entry for eis is quite extensive.

I don't think you can build a dogma on a preposition like eis, or even one verse but it does seem that repentance and baptism are linked closely in this verse and baptism is linked closely to conversion in the mind of the author (see also 2:41, 18:8, 22:16). I'm not sure the early Christians would try and break out the two like we do, trying to nail down exactly were forgiveness occurs. I think the both were part of the conversion experience in the minds of the apostles. Just my humble opinion.

[mental]

Originally Posted by mental

Regarding Acts2:38, Acts A Handbook on the Greek Text by Parsons and Culy states the following.

ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι. It is unclear why the preposition ἐπὶ is used with βαπτίζω (only here in NT) rather than the expected εἰς or ἐν.

εἰς ἄφεσιν. The prepositional phrase denotes purpose. On the theological issues involved with this phrase see Wallace 1996, 369-71. It is likely that repentance and baptism were viewed as a single complex act leading to the forgiveness of sins (cf. 2:41; 18:8; 22:16)

Wallace gives these basics uses for εἰς (see Wallace 1996, 369-71).

1. Spatial: into, toward, in

2. Temporal: for, throughout

3. Purpose: for, in order to, to

4. Result: so that, with the result that

5. Reference/Respect: with respect to, with reference to

6. Advantage: for

7. Disadvantage: against

8. In the place of evn (with its various nuances)

[Scott Hutchinson]

Here's the thing when someone repents,they usually say God forgive me,now does God forgive them when they repent ? Ok baptism in Jesus Name is not an option or a mere suggestion,but is there any virtue in H20 to forgive sin ?

[TheLegalist]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Read his "sentence." I think even the writer would agree that he needed a comma instead of a period at the point I marked "[SIC]." I just found it ironic that in an argument concerning grammar, Padfield chooses a source with a grammatical error in it.

would have to ask him...

NO! Every source YOU cited said it could go either way. Just because you're not reading your own source material, it doesn't stand to reason that they say what you want them to say.

1) "eis" argument and Syntactical argument of seperating repentance from baptism from "kai" which is the natural reading are TWO DIFFERENT ARGUMENTS!
2) You made the statement

repentance and baptism TOGETHOR!" is just the point. The grammar blurs the distinction between "baptism" and "Repent" in Acts 2:38. It's so blurred that we honestly can't "CLEARLY" tell if the prepositional phrase "for the remission of sins" is telling us "BE BAPTIZED BECAUSE of repentance..." or "BE BAPTIZED IN ORDER TO RECEIVE forgiveness."

a) the syntactical argument of postion of repentance 2nd person plural and Baptism 3rd person singular is not about the defining of "eis". It's about in reference to what.
b) the syntactical argument actually supports "eis" as (for, in order to obtain, with purpose of etc..) which is a desperate act because of the clear position of "eis" and it's meaning.
c) the SA (syntactical argument here on) is an attempt to go against the natural reading of the text and to seperate repent "kai" baptized. This is attempted so that the CLEAR FORCE and MEANING of "eis" usually translated "for" is directed at repentance and not baptism. It is not a natural reading but a plausible one. The grammatical support for it is very low.
d) personally I have no idea what your talking about as they are totally two seperate arguments and you have somehow made them the same thing.
e) I simply pointed out your point of "because of" (casual meaning) for "eis' is not even recognized and any scholar such as Wallace and I could name many more that won't even bring it up as it's so weak and has been recognized as such for a very long time. Every current translation recognizes this and won't even attempt it.

Wayne Jackson....

With that in mind, I call your attention to the “scholarly” notes appended to the term “for” (Greek, eis) in Acts 2:38, as found in the phrase “for the forgiveness of sins,” in a relatively new translation called the NET version (1995-2005, Biblical Studies Press).

There is debate over the meaning of eis in the prepositional phrase . . . (eis aphesin ton hamartion, “for/because of/with reference to the forgiveness of your sins”). Although a causal sense has been argued, it is difficult to maintain here. [Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics 369-71 discusses at least four other ways of dealing with the passage: (1) The baptism referred to here is physical only, and eis 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. Acts 3:19; 26:20), and (b) salvation is entirely a gift of God, not procured via water baptism (Acts 10:43 [cf. v. 47]; 13:38-39, 48; 15:11; 16:30-31; 20:21; 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. 2:41); (3) (NOTE:SA ARGUMENT)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 eis, 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 Acts 10:47 and 11:15-16. If this interpretation is correct, then Acts 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 Expositor’s Bible Commentary 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.v. Eis 4.f.


full article http://www.christiancourier.com/arti...tic-subterfuge


It is not an honest approach to the Scriptures to take an isolated text, and twist it into conformity with an interpretation that one seeks to defend due to a theological predisposition, e.g., the dogma of salvation by faith alone.

Professor Daniel Wallace is associated with the Dallas Theological Seminary in Texas. From a personal theological perspective, he does not believe that baptism is required as a condition for the remission of sins. This is important to keep in mind. Dr. Wallace is the author of the highly acclaimed work, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. Therein he has a discussion of the so-called causal use of eis. He contends that studies have shown that “the linguistic evidence for a causal eis” falls short of proof. He stingingly calls this misguided twisting of the preposition an “ingenious solution” that “lacks conviction” (1996, 370-371).
The celebrated Baptist scholar, H.B. Hackett, rendered the Greek phrase, eis aphesin hamartion in Acts 2:38, as “in order to the forgiveness of sins,” and referenced Matthew 26:28 and Luke 3:3 as parallel texts (1879, 54).

full article http://www.christiancourier.com/arti...-matthew-12-41

I am glad that I found this next source online as I was not about to type it out. Could be one of the best sources on baptism written in total. I recommend this to anyone wanting to do research. I am referencing page 168!

http://books.google.com/books?id=xC9...page&q&f=false

Baptism in the early church: history, theology, and liturgy in the first Five centuries. ... By Everett Ferguson

http://www.amazon.com/Baptism-Early-.../dp/0802827489

"The grammatical basis for this exegetical move is that "repent" is a second-person plural second aorist imperative and be "be baptized" is a third-person singular aorist passive imperative. However, the combination of a second person-plural imperative with a third-person singular imperative is common in the Septuagint and early Christian Literature and serves to individualize and make emphatic the need for each individual to do what is commanded.6 Another effort to break the connection between the forgiveness of sins and the command to be baptized appeals to the second-person plural pronoun "your" with sins, arguing that this does not agree with the third person singular "each one" be baptized.7 However, the singular "each one" occasionaly serves as the antecedent of a plural pronoun(as in Acts 3:26).8 Yet another approach is to take the preposition "for"(eis, "into" or "in order to") as expressing cause ("because of") instead of purpose.9 This claim for this usage has been thoroughly refuted.10


http://www.faithalone.org/journal/1990i/Acts2-38.html

"Casual Use"

In summary, the causal eis interpretation is theologically strong, but lexically weak. The causal usage is, in the words of M. J. Harris in his grammatical supplement to The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, "unlikely."


a Quote from.... www.bebaptized.org
According to one source, eis is translated in this way in the King James Version:

Into – 571 times

To -- 282 times

Unto -- 208 times

In -- 131 times

For -- 91 times

On -- 57 times

Toward -- 32 times

That -- 30 times

Against -- 25 times

Upon -- 25 times

At -- 20 times

Among -- 16 times

Concerning -- 5 times

“because of” – 0 times (CASUAL USAGE)

[TheLegalist]

Padfield erred, badly. You have followed his error. Read the source material that you yourself posted. All of them said it could either be "repent" or "baptism" that is being modified by the prepositional phrase beginning with "eis" in Acts 2:39.

See above as "could" and the natural reading are two different things. Sure you could be struck by lightning. It is plausible but not normal. Also did you read why he said what he said? He was not quote mining this was literal interacton HE HAD with them. That is why I gave you the link to the whole...


PADFIELD....

"A few years ago I wrote to several prominent Greek scholars to see if the above line of reasoning was valid. The question I sent to them was as follows: "Is it grammatically possible that the phrase 'eis aphesin hamartion,' 'for the remission of sins,' as used in Acts 2:38, expresses the force of both verbs, 'repent ye and be baptized each one of you,' even though these verbs differ in both person and number?" The following men responded to my inquiry. I will give their qualifications along with their response to my question."

Metzger - "In reply to your recent inquiry may I say that, in my view, the phrase 'eis aphesin hamartion' in Acts 2:38 applies in sense to both of the preceding verbs."

Farstad - "Since the expression 'eis aphesin hamartion' is a prepositional phrase with no verbal endings or singular or plural endings. I certainly agree that grammatically it can go with both repentance and baptism. In fact, I would think that it does go with both of them."

Werner - "It does not matter that, here in Acts 2:38, one of the verbs is second person plural ("y'all") and the other is third-person singular ("is to"). They are both imperative, and the fact that they are joined by kai 'and' is sufficient evidence that the author may have regarded them as a single unit to which his modifier applied."

Barclay Newman and Eugene Nida edited The Translator's Handbook On The Acts Of The Apostles. This book, published by the United Bible Societies, says on page 60: "So that your sins will be forgiven (literally 'into a forgiveness of your sins') in the Greek may express either purpose or result; but the large majority of translators understand it as indicating purpose. The phrase (MY ADDITION 'eis aphesin hamartion' )modifies both main verbs: turn away from your sins and be baptized."

They agree with his question while Barclay and Nida is a quote of agreement which is typical as with most scholars. The natural reading because of "kai" links repentance and baptism as a unit 'eis aphesin hamartion' Blur.... uuuhhh NO! More like a spec of water on a windshield and someone thinking that demands the attention of the windshield wipers.

Grammatical support poor for SA...

http://www.faithalone.org/journal/1990i/Acts2-38.html

Syntactical Argument

First, the defenders of this position have not demonstrated that a comparable syntactical break exists elsewhere in the writings of Luke, nor have they tried to demonstrate it from any parallels from non-biblical Greek sources. While this does not negate the possibility of such a break existing in Acts 2:38, it does raise the issue of whether or not there is here a special pleading using niceties of Greek grammar.

Secondly, this interpretation leaves the purpose of baptism unexpressed in the passage. According to this interpretation, one never learns from reading Acts 2:38 why one is to be baptized. Actually, it would be more natural to extend the parenthesis (if there is one here) to read: "Repent (and be baptized...for the remission of sins) and you shall receive..."

Thirdly, it is more natural to connect the prepositional phrase "for the remission of sins" to the nearest antecedent or to both verbs (they are connected with kai, "repent and be baptized") rather than to connect it to the first verb only.
Fourthly, this interpretation reflects some misunderstanding about Greek grammar. This position rests upon a difference in number between the two verbs and the prepositional phrase. This is something that the standard Greek grammars do not address. While the grammars do discuss the agreement of subject and verb, they do not discuss the idea of agreement between verb and prepositional phrases. In other words, the argument that a syntactical break occurs here which makes for a parenthetical statement is very hard to support. In fact, there is evidence that a change in number in the verbs, as in Acts 2:38, strengthens the demand for baptism and in no way affects its natural relationship with the phrase "for the remission of sins."33
Fifthly, the theological argument for this interpretation is very interesting and not without merit. Baptism can, in the light of the passages cited for support of this position, be understood as expressing ceremonially the repentance which by itself brings forgiveness (cf. Luke 3:3). However, while this may explain Acts 2:38, it may be questioned whether this approach gives us a method for dealing with the more difficult passages of Acts 22:16 and 1 Pet 3:21. These verses are not easily dismissed as speaking merely of the importance of the symbolic value of baptism. These two passages, however, must await further articles in this Journal.

In summary, this view is grammatically weak, but theologically possible. However, for an excellent presentation of the theological support of this position see Robert N. Wilkin's article on repentance in this issue (pp.16-18).

I'm sorry, but I don't really follow the reasoning in the bolded part above. The fact that "he came to save us from our sins" would at least appear to indicate that HE SAVES us and not we ourselves. That salvation is the gift of God, not of works lest any should boast (See Ephesians 2:8-10).

My point was to the thought BEHIND my comment of "baptism is seen many times in "relationship to removal of sin" My point was scripture related baptism(God's Work) to salvation which is "removal of the aspect of sin" because he came to save us from our sins.

Baptism is not a work no more than confession or having faith and placing trust as Colossians 2 clearly points out baptism is "through faith in the operation of God"

Col 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. KJV

"...were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God.." ESV

Who's work is in baptism? GOD'S, BY FAITH IN HIM TO DO! God has no power or authority to do it WITHOUT our faith. He will not justify the wicked!

We are HIS workmanship. We are indeed created "for good works in Christ;" but the subject of this thread concerns salvation and the remission of sins. On this point I wholeheartedly agree with the UPCI's Articles of Faith. The remission of sins occurs at repentance.

Covenant and initial salvation are two different aspects. Only in covenant not initial salvation. You come into covenant AT baptism. The newness of life is not realized until one is IN COVENANT and the circumcision of the old and rising to newness is realized. Yes we are created for and have obligation BY contract TO DO!

I agree with what you appear to be saying concerning the need for sincerity in repentance. We could also add John the Baptist's words, "Bring forth fruit, meet (or acceptable) for repentance." Get the repentance done correctly and sincerely! If that's what you're saying then I'm in your "Amen! corner."

However, to try and tie Matthew 5, up along with the commands to right any wrongs one might have committed as being a "Type" of baptism is inaccurate in my view. Matthew 5, is dealing with how to obtain a right standing before God. For whatever reasons, Jesus simply never brought up water baptism in this context.

Jesus is teaching on principle with the known in view(sacrifice which corresponds to death and death to baptism Romans 6) he doesn't have to bring up baptism. He is talking about proper application and Acts 2:38 clearly shows this type of application as well. Coming to be united with him means nothing without proper turning of heart and position of right standing of the heart. Does your right standing of the heart mean you have realized COVENANT? NO! It simply is God sees the heart as just to ENTER LIFE by being united with him in HIS DEATH! THus our death meets HIS DEATH in baptism! Without such a turning we are not acceptable to be united of heart with him.

I will respond later more when I have time and most likely will be tomorrow at best. Pel you can thank me later for all the links vs just posting partials quotes from my database.... LOL!

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

Indeed. And we do not have this large constituency in limbo somewhere that reject baptism.

Right, but we do have some that put baptism in such an unimportant place that it can be put off indefinitely.

lol...My grandmother has been a United Methodist for ever...My family go way way waaaaay back to the American Methodist Episcopal church.

I remember one time she was upset about a new member that refused to be baptized. Weeks and weeks had gone by and she never committed yet she was considered a member.

But when I read the bible baptism was always an instantaneous response. Something is wrong with us, even with evangelicals when new converts are not instantly being baptized...although to be fair here in America most "new converts" are merely changing churches

[TheLegalist]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

As I said before, it can't go either ways, but that's irrelevant. It should not be an issue. Baptism is both a biblical command and a biblical practice of the NT church. Why would anyone not obey it?

yes but ever notice the drastic mentality of theology overall that generally involves which position? OSAS never have baptism as part of salvation.

the only reason you have arguments against "eis" meaning "for" and hear other lacking arguments is theological not grammatical.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by TheLegalist

yes but ever notice the drastic mentality of theology overall that generally involves which position? OSAS never have baptism as part of salvation.

the only reason you have arguments against "eis" meaning "for" and hear other lacking arguments is theological not grammatical.

Of course! Evangelicals have a presumption of theology that they have to look at Acts 2:38 baptism a certain way. Though they will say their presumption is based on scriptures, that is beside the point

[Praxeas]

BTW I meant it CAN go either way

[Sam]

Originally Posted by mental

It is hard to nail down a Greek preposition like eis into one word like "for". It is quite a flexible Greek word and has a whole range of meanings. The BDAG entry for eis is quite extensive.

I don't think you can build a dogma on a preposition like eis, or even one verse but it does seem that repentance and baptism are linked closely in this verse and baptism is linked closely to conversion in the mind of the author (see also 2:41, 18:8, 22:16). I'm not sure the early Christians would try and break out the two like we do, trying to nail down exactly were forgiveness occurs. I think the both were part of the conversion experience in the minds of the apostles. Just my humble opinion.

I agree that baptism is important in the NT. There are about 20 stories of conversions in the Book of Acts and several times it is mentioned that the new converts follow up their conversion with water baptism. Water baptism seems to be done immediately after conversion and a confession of faith where it is mentioned. But, to build a doctrine saying that a person is not saved without water baptism, and that a person does not have sins washed away without water baptism, and that a person does not have sins forgiven without water baptism on Acts 2:38 seems a little extreme.