Poll on what Acts 2:38 was intended to mean

[Sparko]

If you're delusional, it might sound about right. 141 and OBP may disagree with your vote calculations.

I was merely using your own tactics Jeff. Now all of a sudden it is just 141 and OBP who disagree with me. Wow the number sure reduced fast.

I don't see any harm in that redundant exercise.

Then I will do it.

[Cow Poke]

I was merely using your own tactics Jeff. Now all of a sudden it is just 141 and OBP who disagree with me. Wow the number sure reduced fast.



Then I will do it.

Well, hold on a sec.... Because Jeff seems to have moved the goal posts... It WAS about the use of "eis" in Acts 2:38 --- regarding Baptism.

He seems to have EXPANDED that to include "believing" before being saved.

[nrajeff]

"seems to obviously support"???? It either SEEMS to or it's OBVIOUS.

It seems obvious to me. Whether it's definitely obvious to everyone, I wouldn't presume to say. Is that OK with you?

Well, DUH!!!! You can't get saved BEFORE you believe!!!!

Then maybe you can't get your sins remitted before you repent and get baptized. DUH!

Jeff, you have lost it!

I have lost what little respect I had for you, if that's what you're referring to.

NOTHING there about Baptism, Jeff. Remember, Acts 2:38? THAT was your premise.

You sure "glare" a lot--you're so dramatic.

I will type slowly: These verses consistently describe a linear, chronological order of events, which refutes the bassackwards interpretation method that you and Sparko have latched onto.

These verses refute your (and Sparko's and RBerman's) cart-before-horse deciphering system that twists "Do one thing so that another thing can happen" into "Do one thing BECAUSE the other thing ALREADY happened."

If the Bible can't make you realize that you got the order wrong, what will?

[nrajeff]

I was merely using your own tactics Jeff.

Is that a frequent habit of yours--using tactics of people you believe to be stupid, Biblically-illiterate, drama-queen jerks? Does that make sense, in your mind?

Now all of a sudden it is just 141 and OBP who disagree with me. Wow the number sure reduced fast.

I still disagree with you.

[Sparko]

Jeff if you can't even understand the discussion there is no hope for you. We are saying that you get baptized because you are saved as an act of obedience and a declaration of your faith before men. Being saved is basically a declaration by God, a promise that when the judgment comes you will be forgiven for your sins. So yes you can talk about being saved now, and going to be saved at the judgment and it is the same thing. We have the promise now, and God ain't no liar.

[Sparko]

Is that a frequent habit of yours--using tactics of people you believe to be stupid, Biblically-illiterate, drama-queen jerks? Does that make sense, in your mind?

it seems to be something you understand.

I still disagree with you.

I am shocked!

[Cow Poke]

I have lost what little respect I had for you, if that's what you're referring to.

AGAIN!?!?!?!?!!?

I will type slowly:

Well, I sure wouldn't expect you to type faster than you think, although there is evidence that happens!

These verses consistently describe a linear, chronological order of events, which refutes the bassackwards interpretation method that you and Sparko have latched onto.

No, Jeff --- we were SPECIFICALLY referring to the verse in question-- the TITLE of the thread that YOU posted....

If, by "chronological order of events", I'd have to confess that I actually LIFT the glass to my lips before taking a drink.

These verses refute your (and Sparko's and RBerman's) cart-before-horse deciphering system that twists "Do one thing so that another thing can happen" into "Do one thing BECAUSE the other thing ALREADY happened."

No, Jeff.... you have changed the whole premise from "eis" in Acts 2:38 concerning BAPTISM to ANYTHING prior to Salvation. I happen to believe that I need to be BORN before I am "born again".... so, OBVIOUSLY there are some things that need to happen "before" I get saved.

Baptism isn't one of them.

[nrajeff]

Jeff if you can't even understand the discussion there is no hope for you.

I think I understand it better than you do, since the issue is whether or not you are justified in spinning the verse around to make it say something other than what it apparently says.

We are saying that you get baptized because you are saved as an act of obedience and a declaration of your faith before men.

I know you are saying that. And I and others are saying that the verse does not warrant such an interpretation. Multiple Bibles (as OBP noted) even remove all ambiguity, and spell it out for you:

Peter was saying that what those Jews needed to do was to repent and be baptized so that their sins could be remitted. NOT because their sins had ALREADY been remitted.

And multiple ECFs interpreted Acts 2: 38 exactly that way. Not your way. Is it your opinion that they didn't sufficiently understand koine Greek to grasp the correct context?

Being saved is basically a declaration by God, a promise that when the judgment comes you will be forgiven for your sins.

I think you are confusing yourself. Now you're saying that the forgiveness of sins is something that WILL happen in the FUTURE, on Judgment Day????

But your whole argument was that Acts 2:38 quotes Peter telling those Jews that their sins had already been remitted.

So yes you can talk about being saved now, and going to be saved at the judgment and it is the same thing. We have the promise now, and God ain't no liar.

The question is whether Peter said "Repent and be baptized so that your sins can be remitted, and so that you can receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" or whether he said "Repent and be baptized BECAUSE your sins have ALREADY been forgiven...."

Think for a second: Your interpretation has the sins of those Jews forgiven BEFORE THEY REPENTED of those very sins.

Is the idea that forgiveness precedes repentance REALLY biblical? Is it what "traditional Christianity" taught?

[nrajeff]

If, by "chronological order of events", I'd have to confess that I actually LIFT the glass to my lips before taking a drink.

The way to say it that would actually be analogous to the verse in question would be:

And CP asked "What must I do in order to quench my thirst?"
And someone with common sense answered and said unto him:
"Lift a glass of 7-Up to your lips and drink eis (for) the hydration of your body."

To do it your way and have the answer be "Drink some 7-up because you have already been refreshed" makes no sense. It is illogical and unwarranted to twist such a meaning out of "for" in such cases.

[OtherCheek]

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.

I don't eat a meal "because" I'm already filled and satisfied. But I'm weird that way.

[nrajeff]

I don't eat a meal "because" I'm already filled and satisfied. But I'm weird that way.

But if you were a Greek, that's what you would do....? :)

Your analogy is a good one: "Eat some food for the filling of your stomach" parallels the structure of Acts 2:38 as well as anything else that anyone including me has come up with. So I take it your vote will be "no" ? (Don't want to jump to conclusions, because some people here get a little jumpy at the possibility)

[Cow Poke]

But if you were a Greek, that's what you would do....? :)

Your analogy is a good one: "Eat some food for the filling of your stomach" parallels the structure of Acts 2:38 as well as anything else that anyone including me has come up with. So I take it your vote will be "no" ? (Don't want to jump to conclusions, because some people here get a little jumpy at the possibility)

You are overshooting the runway again, Jeff. "eis" can be translated a number of different ways. Even IF you were correct about the particular translation in Acts 2:38, it most certainly does not mean it is ALWAYS translated that way. You really really don't understand context.

[Cow Poke]

I don't eat a meal "because" I'm already filled and satisfied. But I'm weird that way.

Glad to see you back, OC. Filled and satisfied, or weird, or not.

[Sparko]

I think I understand it better than you do, since the issue is whether or not you are justified in spinning the verse around to make it say something other than what it apparently says.


I know you are saying that. And I and others are saying that the verse does not warrant such an interpretation. Multiple Bibles (as OBP noted) even remove all ambiguity, and spell it out for you:

Peter was saying that what those Jews needed to do was to repent and be baptized so that their sins could be remitted. NOT because their sins had ALREADY been remitted.

And multiple ECFs interpreted Acts 2: 38 exactly that way. Not your way. Is it your opinion that they didn't sufficiently understand koine Greek to grasp the correct context?


I think you are confusing yourself. Now you're saying that the forgiveness of sins is something that WILL happen in the FUTURE, on Judgment Day????

But your whole argument was that Acts 2:38 quotes Peter telling those Jews that their sins had already been remitted.


The question is whether Peter said "Repent and be baptized so that your sins can be remitted, and so that you can receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" or whether he said "Repent and be baptized BECAUSE your sins have ALREADY been forgiven...."

Think for a second: Your interpretation has the sins of those Jews forgiven BEFORE THEY REPENTED of those very sins.

Is the idea that forgiveness precedes repentance REALLY biblical? Is it what "traditional Christianity" taught?

Jeff if you can't be honest enough to even repeat back what I said correctly then you are a useless piece of flesh.

[nrajeff]

Jeff if you can't be honest enough to even repeat back what I said correctly then you are a useless piece of flesh.

WAS there something that you said correctly? Certainly not that the correct meaning of Acts 2: 38 is ""It says baptism for the remission of sins, as in "because of."

That is so clearly NOT the correct interpretation. Even some BIBLES spell it out for you, to prevent all but the most intransigently oblivious from misunderstanding it:

Peter told them, “You must repent and every one of you must be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ, so that you may have your sins forgiven and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." JB Phillips NT

Now, if you could come up with even a FEW Bibles that translate the verse the way you want it to mean, then you'd have something of an argument--even ONE Bible that translates it:

"Peter told them, “You must repent and every one of you must be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ, BECAUSE you HAD your sins forgiven and you received the gift of the Holy Spirit."

then maybe you'd have a case with some substance on its side.

Question for Sparko: WHY is there apparently NO Bible that translates it the way you think it should have been translated? Did all those translators get it wrong--maybe they were bribed by the LDS to do so--and only you are right, and unfortunately they didn't let you be on any Bible translation committee? Was there a conspiracy to keep your "correct" version out of the Bible?