THIS is True Love!!!

[Michael Phelps]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

I was able to obtain the article written by Marcus but I haven't read it yet, but I will once this semester is done. It was written in 1957, I think.

I'm in my last and fourth semester of biblical Greek. We use Wallace's text on Beyond the Basics. I read what Marcus wrote and his reasons why "eis" in Acts 2:38 is not causal after this semester is over.

My only issue with using articles like this to back up Biblical beliefs is that mere men wrote these papers. Opinionated men, I'm sure....and even in 2011, I can find hundreds and hundreds of "papers" on scriptural interpretation that would support several different positions.

When we get down to where we're debating the meaning of the term 'eis' with multiple pages of doctrinal papers, we're in trouble, in my opinion.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps

My only issue with using articles like this to back up Biblical beliefs is that mere men wrote these papers. Opinionated men, I'm sure....and even in 2011, I can find hundreds and hundreds of "papers" on scriptural interpretation that would support several different positions.

When we get down to where we're debating the meaning of the term 'eis' with multiple pages of doctrinal papers, we're in trouble, in my opinion.

This article is significant because the whole claim against Acts 2:38 is a grammatical one that according to perhaps today's most predominant greek scholar, does not exist.

Second, it seems the only argument against Acts 2:38 meaning what it actually says to begin with is "But it contradicts my theology on salvation", which happens to be the same reason Ive heard against a Oneness view of Jn 1:1

I appreciate Wallace's honesty with the text