THIS is True Love!!!

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Sorry for the delayed response. I'm having trouble with my Internet provider or my phone line. I'll have to call them again on Monday. Very aggravating.

I'll have to think about what you typed in bold. I have to listen to John preaching a "baptism of repentance" and think about that. They appear to be tied up together. I, obviously, don't know everything, but this seems important as there doesn't seem to be any disconnect with repentance and baptism for the remission of sins as preached in Acts.

My loyalties are only tied up with God and His Word. Been a lot of places, seen a lot of faces, you know how that plays out in the end.

It's an old debate and there are many viewpoints that have and will pop up. For me, why do the Articles of Faith clearly say "genuine repentance" is what is required to receive "pardon and forgiveness of sins" and then have the heading under "Water Baptism" be absolutely silent about any sort of reference to "the remission of sins?"

Until 1973, not even the Fundamental Doctrine had the phrase "for the remission of sins" in it. DKB has offered the opinion that this was an "unfortunate oversight" based upon a conversation he reported having with Stanley Chambers (or something Bro. Chambers had said publicly). However, adding the phrase to the Fundamental Doctrine à la Acts 2:38, merely perpetuates the original ambiguities.

There is a lot of pressure right now to overhaul the AoF and purge it of all references to "pardon and forgiveness of sins" being attached to "genuine repentance."

[Hoovie]

Pel, aside from the 73 change was there not a change made in about 93 regarding the word Conversion?

[BeenThinkin]

Man I take a little time off from AFF and what happens, OLDPATHII gets his long handle underwear all up in a knot.

I've been reading all of the posts trying to catch up. Some of you really laid it on him and it seems he must have tucked tail and run!

I don't blame him I'd run and hide too! But you know what, he may have a tiny pinch of love left in him. He was almost taking up for NotofWorks it seemed at one point! That's almost a miracle in itself.

If you don't learn something on AFF it's simply because your mind is like concrete and it's already set up!

Been Thinkin

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

You all can believe what you want but "eis" is not causal in Acts 2:38. An interesting article on the preposition "eis" in Acts 2:38:

Dallas Professor Rebuffs Common Quibble on “Eis”
By WAYNE JACKSON
September 3, 2001
Bookmark and Share

On the day of Pentecost, at the conclusion of his presentation, the apostle Peter issued the following command.

“Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto [‘for’ KJV] the remission of your sins . . .” (Acts 2:38 ASV).

The Greek preposition eis (for/unto) has long been a point of controversy between those who believe that baptism is essential to salvation, and those who repudiate that idea. It has been common over the years for scholars to allege that eis has a causal force, i.e., its meaning actually conveys this thought: “. . . be baptized because of the remission of your sins.” “Forgiveness,” it is claimed, is received at the point of faith — and that alone.
A.T. Robertson, the premier Baptist grammarian, argued this case in his famous work, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman, 1930, III, 35-36). In addition, J.R. Mantey contended for the “causal” sense of eis in Acts 2:38, though he classified that use of the preposition as a “remote meaning.” His discussion clearly indicated, however, that he yielded to that view because of his conviction that, if baptism was “for the purpose of the remission of sins,” then salvation would be of works, and not by faith (a false conclusion) (see: H.E. Dana & J.R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, New York: Macmillan, 1955, 103-04). Those of the Baptist persuasion constantly appeal to Robertson and Mantey as authorities on this matter.

It has been a matter of long-standing knowledge, however, that the standard Greek lexicons do not define eis as “because of” with reference to Acts 2:38. J.H. Thayer, for instance, translated the term as follows, citing Acts 2:38 — “eis aphesin hamartion, to obtain the forgiveness of sins” (Greek-English Lexicon, Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark, 1958, 94). Wm. Arndt and F.W. Gingrich, in a section where eis is defined as expressing “purpose,” with the sense of “in order to,” rendered the same phrase: “for forgiveness of sins, so that sins might be forgiven . . . Acts 2:38:” (Greek-English Lexicon, Chicago: University of Chicago, 1967, 228).

Elliger states that eis, in Acts 2:38, is designed “to indicate purpose” (Horst Balz & Gerhard Schneider, Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990, Vol. 1, 399). In his discussion of Acts 2:38, Ceslas Spicq noted: “Water baptism is a means of realizing this conversion, and its goal — something altogether new — is a washing, ‘the remission of sins’” (Theological Lexicon of the New Testament, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994, Vol. 1, 242). It is hardly necessary to pile up additional testimony.

That brings me to this point. In 1996, Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, an associate professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, published his new book, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan). It is a scholarly volume of more than 800 pages. In his discussion of eis, Wallace lists five uses of the preposition, and among them “causal” is conspicuously missing!

Prof. Wallace explains the absence. He says that an “interesting discussion over the force of eis took place several years ago, especially in relation to Acts 2:38.” He references the position of J.R. Mantey, that “eis could be used causally” in this passage. Wallace mentions that Mantey was taken to task by another scholar, Ralph Marcus (Marcus, Journal of Biblical Literature, 70 1952 129-30; 71 1953 44). These two men engaged in what Dr. Wallace called a “blow-by-blow” encounter. When the smoke had cleared, the Dallas professor concedes, “Marcus ably demonstrated that the linguistic evidence for a causal eis fell short of proof” (370).

It is not that Prof. Wallace has come to the conviction that baptism is essential for salvation. No, he resorts to other manipulations to resist that conclusion.
He has, however, rebuffed a long-defended argument that eis means “because of.” We are happy for that progress, and we, with genuine sincerity, pray that many of our Protestant, “faith-only” friends will make even further advancements toward the truth of the first-century gospel.

http://www.christiancourier.com/arti...quibble-on-eis

Very interesting read. This is followup
http://www.christiancourier.com/arti...allas-seminary

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Very interesting read. This is followup
http://www.christiancourier.com/arti...allas-seminary

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.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps

My challenges to OPII were more about his attitude, and his mindless recitation of old time traditions and perpetuation of self-righteous demarcation - i.e. the TRUE apostolics vs. the fake ones, the true truth holders vs. the greasy gracers.

However, I do find it interesting that there are people who will completely ignore plain scripture in a rush to grab a few other scriptures to bolster up their case, and I wonder why we are so afraid of certain scriptures? Why do we have to qualify them by saying "Well, that's not really what it means, or that's not all there is to it".

And, PO, this is not intended to you, I just happened to grab your post to reply to since it's the last in the link......

Thanks, Michael!

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

You all can believe what you want but "eis" is not causal in Acts 2:38. An interesting article on the preposition "eis" in Acts 2:38:

Dallas Professor Rebuffs Common Quibble on “Eis”
By WAYNE JACKSON
September 3, 2001
Bookmark and Share

On the day of Pentecost, at the conclusion of his presentation, the apostle Peter issued the following command.

“Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto [‘for’ KJV] the remission of your sins . . .” (Acts 2:38 ASV).

The Greek preposition eis (for/unto) has long been a point of controversy between those who believe that baptism is essential to salvation, and those who repudiate that idea. It has been common over the years for scholars to allege that eis has a causal force, i.e., its meaning actually conveys this thought: “. . . be baptized because of the remission of your sins.” “Forgiveness,” it is claimed, is received at the point of faith — and that alone.
A.T. Robertson, the premier Baptist grammarian, argued this case in his famous work, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman, 1930, III, 35-36). In addition, J.R. Mantey contended for the “causal” sense of eis in Acts 2:38, though he classified that use of the preposition as a “remote meaning.” His discussion clearly indicated, however, that he yielded to that view because of his conviction that, if baptism was “for the purpose of the remission of sins,” then salvation would be of works, and not by faith (a false conclusion) (see: H.E. Dana & J.R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, New York: Macmillan, 1955, 103-04). Those of the Baptist persuasion constantly appeal to Robertson and Mantey as authorities on this matter.

It has been a matter of long-standing knowledge, however, that the standard Greek lexicons do not define eis as “because of” with reference to Acts 2:38. J.H. Thayer, for instance, translated the term as follows, citing Acts 2:38 — “eis aphesin hamartion, to obtain the forgiveness of sins” (Greek-English Lexicon, Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark, 1958, 94). Wm. Arndt and F.W. Gingrich, in a section where eis is defined as expressing “purpose,” with the sense of “in order to,” rendered the same phrase: “for forgiveness of sins, so that sins might be forgiven . . . Acts 2:38:” (Greek-English Lexicon, Chicago: University of Chicago, 1967, 228).

Elliger states that eis, in Acts 2:38, is designed “to indicate purpose” (Horst Balz & Gerhard Schneider, Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990, Vol. 1, 399). In his discussion of Acts 2:38, Ceslas Spicq noted: “Water baptism is a means of realizing this conversion, and its goal — something altogether new — is a washing, ‘the remission of sins’” (Theological Lexicon of the New Testament, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994, Vol. 1, 242). It is hardly necessary to pile up additional testimony.

That brings me to this point. In 1996, Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, an associate professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, published his new book, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan). It is a scholarly volume of more than 800 pages. In his discussion of eis, Wallace lists five uses of the preposition, and among them “causal” is conspicuously missing!

Prof. Wallace explains the absence. He says that an “interesting discussion over the force of eis took place several years ago, especially in relation to Acts 2:38.” He references the position of J.R. Mantey, that “eis could be used causally” in this passage. Wallace mentions that Mantey was taken to task by another scholar, Ralph Marcus (Marcus, Journal of Biblical Literature, 70 1952 129-30; 71 1953 44). These two men engaged in what Dr. Wallace called a “blow-by-blow” encounter. When the smoke had cleared, the Dallas professor concedes, “Marcus ably demonstrated that the linguistic evidence for a causal eis fell short of proof” (370).

It is not that Prof. Wallace has come to the conviction that baptism is essential for salvation. No, he resorts to other manipulations to resist that conclusion.
He has, however, rebuffed a long-defended argument that eis means “because of.” We are happy for that progress, and we, with genuine sincerity, pray that many of our Protestant, “faith-only” friends will make even further advancements toward the truth of the first-century gospel.

http://www.christiancourier.com/arti...quibble-on-eis

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by pelathais

It's an old debate and there are many viewpoints that have and will pop up. For me, why do the Articles of Faith clearly say "genuine repentance" is what is required to receive "pardon and forgiveness of sins" and then have the heading under "Water Baptism" be absolutely silent about any sort of reference to "the remission of sins?"

Until 1973, not even the Fundamental Doctrine had the phrase "for the remission of sins" in it. DKB has offered the opinion that this was an "unfortunate oversight" based upon a conversation he reported having with Stanley Chambers (or something Bro. Chambers had said publicly). However, adding the phrase to the Fundamental Doctrine à la Acts 2:38, merely perpetuates the original ambiguities.

There is a lot of pressure right now to overhaul the AoF and purge it of all references to "pardon and forgiveness of sins" being attached to "genuine repentance."

Pel,
I don't know. I never read any of these things when I got in church, however, I spent a lot of time reading my Bible. That's what I thought I was supposed to do. Frankly, I don't see how baptism was overlooked and remained silent on the issue. From what I have studied, coupled with what Mizpeh posted on "eis" not being being casual (I didn't have to study the Greek to come to that conclusion), I'd have to agree with DKB, it was an unfortunate oversight.

[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.

[Apprehended]

The problem with "eis" from Acts 2:38 will exist forever among Greek linguist given to certain prejudices, if considered and studied from this one verse alone. Seems to me to be a ridiculous approach since there are so much scriptural evidence that give voice to the real purpose of eis in Acts 2:38.