Poll on what Acts 2:38 was intended to mean

[nrajeff]

Acts 2:38 (NASB)

Peter said to them, “Repent, and each 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.

Sparko's interpretation of the word εἰς (eis, Strong's G1519) in the verse is as follows (bolding by me):

"It says baptism for the remission of sins, as in "because of"
Like you being mocked for your idiocy. "

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...nonsense/page3

And Jethro apparently agrees with Sparko's "for' equals 'because of'" position, since he didn't say a word of disagreement but instead railed against the correctness of my position--something about the need for proper research (ibid., post 42)

Against the position of at least those 2 posters (there is a good chance that others of you agree with those 2), my position is as follows:

Peter was preaching to the "devout men from every nation under heaven"--who had just experienced the apostles speaking things about God in their various languages, and who had felt a piercing in their hearts when Peter had declared the gospel to them. They asked Peter and the other apostles "What shall we do?"

And Peter's answer was that they should do one thing, which would lead to two other things happening:

They should be baptized with the intended result that their sins would be remitted/forgiven, which would then result in them receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit.

There is a definite chronological order being stated in verse 38: Get baptized, then remission of sins, then the bestowal of the gift of the HS.

A Bible verse that similarly uses εἰς the way I believe it was used here (i.e. "with the intended result," can be found 5 chapters later in Acts: (7:19)

...they cast out their young children, to the end 1519 they might not live .

Another is in Acts 9:21:

...Is not this he that destroyed them which called on this name in Jerusalem , and came hither for 1519 0 that intent1519, that he might bring them bound unto the chief priests

As should be obvious, εἰς is not being used to mean "because" the proceeding event has already occurred--it was intended to mean "with the (intended?) result that something would THEN, subsequently, occur.

And I see no good reason to believe that εἰς as used Acts 2: 38 was intended to mean "because you already got forgiveness of your sins" instead of "with the intended result that you WILL GET forgiveness of sins."

So, the poll: Based on what you now understand regarding the issue, do the rest of you agree with Sparko's (and presumably Jethro's) claim regarding what "for" (εἰς) in the verse was intended to mean?

a) yes

b) no


I get to cast the first vote, and it is: b) no .

P.S.--I extend a special invitation to Jethro, Cow Poke, and One Bad Pig to point out any errors of fact or of logic in the "hermeneutics" used in this post.

[Sparko]

there is no poll.

[Chrawnus]

Acts 2:38 (NASB)

Peter said to them, “Repent, and each 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.

Sparko's interpretation of the word εἰς (eis, Strong's G1519) in the verse is as follows (bolding by me):

"It says baptism for the remission of sins, as in "because of"
Like you being mocked for your idiocy. "

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...nonsense/page3

And Jethro apparently agrees with Sparko's "for' equals 'because of'" position, since he didn't say a word of disagreement but instead railed against the correctness of my position--something about the need for proper research (ibid., post 42)

Against the position of at least those 2 posters (there is a good chance that others of you agree with those 2), my position is as follows:

Peter was preaching to the "devout men from every nation under heaven"--who had just experienced the apostles speaking things about God in their various languages, and who had felt a piercing in their hearts when Peter had declared the gospel to them. They asked Peter and the other apostles "What shall we do?"

And Peter's answer was that they should do one thing, which would lead to two other things happening:

They should be baptized with the intended result that their sins would be remitted/forgiven, which would then result in them receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit.

There is a definite chronological order being stated in verse 38: Get baptized, then remission of sins, then the bestowal of the gift of the HS.

A Bible verse that similarly uses εἰς the way I believe it was used here (i.e. "with the intended result," can be found 5 chapters later in Acts: (7:19)

...they cast out their young children, to the end 1519 they might not live .

Another is in Acts 9:21:

...Is not this he that destroyed them which called on this name in Jerusalem , and came hither for 1519 0 that intent1519, that he might bring them bound unto the chief priests

As should be obvious, εἰς is not being used to mean "because" the proceeding event has already occurred--it was intended to mean "with the (intended?) result that something would THEN, subsequently, occur.

And I see no good reason to believe that εἰς as used Acts 2: 38 was intended to mean "because you already got forgiveness of your sins" instead of "with the intended result that you WILL GET forgiveness of sins."

So, the poll: Based on what you now understand regarding the issue, do the rest of you agree with Sparko's (and presumably Jethro's) claim regarding what "for" (εἰς) in the verse was intended to mean?

a) yes

b) no


I get to cast the first vote, and it is: b) no .

P.S.--I extend a special invitation to Jethro, Cow Poke, and One Bad Pig to point out any errors of fact or of logic in the "hermeneutics" used in this post.

Instead of making this a poll, why not just post it as a question in the Languages section of the forum, so that someone competent in Biblical Greek, like John Reece, can answer it? That would probably be far more productive than this poll.

[nrajeff]

While all you readers out there are getting ready to share your opinions as to whether the Sparko Explanation is correct, here's what a few other people have said on the subject:

Our denominational friends often focus on the word "for" in this passage and insist it means "because of," even though it is never translated that way in the Bible. We have to remind them that if baptism is "because of" the remission of sins, then so is repentance. Baptism and repentance are joined by the little conjunction "and." Whatever baptism is "for," repentance is "for."

After we are buried with Christ in baptism, we are raised to walk in a newness of life (Romans 6:1-4). This new life comes after baptism. Many preachers who want to "bury" the "new man," since they claim the newness of life comes before our "burial."
http://www.padfield.com/2003/baptism.html

...It is our sins that separate us from God. We are to repent and be baptized for the remission of our sins....when Peter told them to "Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins," whatever repentance is for in that verse, baptism is for the same reason. Repent and be baptized are joined by the coordinating conjunction and, which joins words of equal grammatical importance.

Certainly Acts 2:38 does not teach that lost people are to repent because they have already received forgiveness of their sins. Neither does it teach that lost people are to be baptized because their sins are already forgiven. Satan would like you to believe that baptism has nothing to do with the forgiveness of your sins. ...
http://www.bible.ca/interactive/salv...orgiveness.htm

[nrajeff]

Another claim:

The historic church has confessed that baptism provides for the forgiveness of sin. In the third article of the Nicene Creed, many confess “We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sin.” This creed is confessed by the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, as well as Reformed churches.

http://www.extremetheology.com/2006/...ism_saves.html

It goes on to address questions such as "What does Baptism do?"

[nrajeff]

there is no poll.

Sure there is, and it goes like this:

"Do you agree with Sparko's (and presumably Jethro's) claim regarding what "for" (εἰς) in the verse was intended to mean?

a) yes

b) no

Anyone with an answer to the question posts a simple "yes" or "no" and then the results can be evaluated.

It's fairly easy. Presumably, your vote is "yes."

[nrajeff]

One more site that directly refutes the Sparko Interpretation:

Another attempt to blunt the force of Acts 2:38 and to deny its plainness was to suggest that "for remission of sins" means "because one has received remission of sins."...However, no reliable translation renders Acts 2:38 as "because of remission of sins."

... "And He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying `Drink ye all of it;
for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins"'
(Matthew 26:27-28).

Everyone agrees that the Lord meant His blood was shed that men might
receive the remission of sins. He did not mean His blood was shed "because of remission of sins. "

http://grandoldbook.com/baptismforth...sionofsins.pdf

[nrajeff]

Instead of making this a poll, why not just post it as a question in the Languages section of the forum, so that someone competent in Biblical Greek, like John Reece, can answer it?

Because there are already anti-LDS folks right here in the anti-LDS forum who have already claimed to have the correct understanding of what the verse was intended to mean, and those folks are criticizing the LDS interpretation, right here in this forum. And so here is where they will stand or fall.

You forgot to provide YOUR yes/no answer to the question, Chrawnus.

[Sparko]

Sure there is, and it goes like this:

"Do you agree with Sparko's (and presumably Jethro's) claim regarding what "for" (εἰς) in the verse was intended to mean?

a) yes

b) no

Anyone with an answer to the question posts a simple "yes" or "no" and then the results can be evaluated.

It's fairly easy. Presumably, your vote is "yes."

would you like me to add an actual poll to the thread? I am happy to do so.

[Cerebrum123]

Since I find this poll an exercise in futility, I will not be voting, but I would like to know what you would do if the majority of people agreed with the "anti's"?

[Cow Poke]

Acts 2:38 (NASB)

Peter said to them, “Repent, and each 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.

Sparko's interpretation of the word εἰς (eis, Strong's G1519) in the verse is as follows (bolding by me):

"It says baptism for the remission of sins, as in "because of"
Like you being mocked for your idiocy. "

Jeff,

Could you please, please PRETTY PLEASE use the quote function so the rest of us can see the context in which something was said? I'm not disputing that Sparko said that, but it really helps to see the context.

Thanks

CP

[Sparko]

Gill's expository:

for the remission of sins; not that forgiveness of sin could be procured either by repentance, or by baptism; for this is only obtained by the blood of Christ; but the apostle advises these awakened, sensible, repenting, and believing souls, to submit to baptism, that by it their faith might be led to Christ, who suffered and died for their sins, who left them buried in his grave, and who rose again for their justification from them; all which is, in a most lively manner, represented in the ordinance of baptism by immersion: the encouragement to it follows,


Albert Barnes notes on the bible:
For the remission of sins - Not merely the sin of crucifying the Messiah, but of all sins. There is nothing in baptism itself that can wash away sin. That can be done only by the pardoning mercy of God through the atonement of Christ. But baptism is expressive of a willingness to be pardoned in that way, and is a solemn declaration of our conviction that there is no other way of remission. He who comes to be baptized, comes with a professed conviction that he is a sinner; that there is no other way of mercy but in the gospel, and with a professed willingness to comply with the terms of salvation, and to receive it as it is offered through Jesus Christ.

and it IS used as "because" in

Mat 10:41 The one who receives a prophet because he is a prophet will receive a prophet's reward, and the one who receives a righteous person because he is a righteous person will receive a righteous person's reward.

and in
Mat 12:41 The men of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here.


Robertsons:
It is seen in Mat_10:41 in three examples eis onoma prophētou, dikaiou, mathētou where it cannot be purpose or aim, but rather the basis or ground, on the basis of the name of prophet, righteous man, disciple, because one is, etc. It is seen again in Mat_12:41 about the preaching of Jonah (eis to kērugma Iōna). They repented because of (or at) the preaching of Jonah.

[Jedidiah]

I would interpret it in the light of other scripture, such as:

Acts 16:30 Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31 And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

[One Bad Pig]

Acts 2:38 (NASB)

Peter said to them, “Repent, and each 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.

Sparko's interpretation of the word εἰς (eis, Strong's G1519) in the verse is as follows (bolding by me):

"It says baptism for the remission of sins, as in "because of"
Like you being mocked for your idiocy. "

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...nonsense/page3

P.S.--I extend a special invitation to Jethro, Cow Poke, and One Bad Pig to point out any errors of fact or of logic in the "hermeneutics" used in this post.

You missed what is perhaps the most parallel usage - Mark 1:4

Mark 1:4 KJV

John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

I would say that you erred in focusing on chronological order, because Sparko's interpretation would not alter that.

[Cow Poke]

I would interpret it in the light of other scripture, such as:

Acts 16:30 Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31 And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

And....

Scripture Verse:

(Rom 10:9 KJV) That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
(John 3:17 KJV) For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
(Acts 2:21 KJV) And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.
(Acts 4:12 KJV) Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
(Acts 15:11 KJV) But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
(Rom 10:13 KJV) For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.