Why Baptism Doesn't Wash Away Sins, Acts 10:43

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by houston

source?

The source is the Greek word used for "for" in verse 38. It is a forward looking phrase.

[houston]

EIS/ because of

[houston]

Sec... I am reading about this topic... BBL

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by houston

EIS/ because of

EIS is never used as "because of", at least that I'm aware of. Believe me, I tried hard to make it say that, and it simply does not.

[houston]

Originally Posted by Originalist

EIS is never used as "because of", at least that I'm aware of. Believe me, I tried hard to make it say that, and it simply does not.

Matt 3:11, 12:41, 28:19

Romans 6:3

I Cor 1:15, 10:2, 12:13

I Peter 3:21

Acts 19:3

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by houston

Matt 3:11, 12:41, 28:19

Romans 6:3

I Cor 1:15, 10:2, 12:13

I Peter 3:21

Acts 19:3

The only one that could even remotely be mis-construed to mean "because of" would be Matthew 12:41. The rest are clearly pointing forward "into". You'd be hard pressed to find a serious Greek scholar who would say otherwise. Why do you think there is not a single translation that translates these verses using "because of"? They are too intellectually honest to do so.

But even a close examination of Matthew 12:41 demonstrates that EIS does not mean "because of" in this verse. I found this article helpful....

In numerous articles we have called attention to the force of the preposition eis as used in Acts 2:38.

Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto eis the remission of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

See our recent article, The Preposition Eis in Acts 2:38. The Greek lexicons are of a united voice as to the meaning of eis in Acts 2:38.

Robinson noted that the baptism/eis connection, as used in Acts 2:38, marked “the object and effect of the rite of baptism; chiefly with eis c. acc. to baptize or be baptized into anything” (1855, 118). J.H. Thayer said that the significance of eis in Acts 2:38 is “to obtain the forgiveness of sins” (1958, 94). Arndt and Gingrich affirmed that eis denoted “purpose, in order to . . . for forgiveness of sins, so that sins might be forgiven” (1967, 228). It is wholly unnecessary to continue piling up authorities with reference to this matter.

In years gone by, it was fashionable to contend that there are rare exceptions to the prospective thrust of eis. It was alleged that the preposition could signify “because of” (the direct opposite of the standard definition). A favorite text cited in support of this position was Matthew 12:41, where Christ said:

The men of Nineveh shall stand up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold, a greater than Jonah is here.

The Lord declared that the people of Nineveh “repented at eis the preaching of Jonah.” Here, then, was the common ploy with reference to this text. The folks of Nineveh, it was argued, did not repent “in order to” hear Jonah; rather, they repented “because of” Jonah’s preaching. Thus, supposedly, this constituted an example of the “causal” (retroactive) use of eis. What should be said in response to this argument?
Analysis

The following factors absolutely must be taken into consideration.

Since eis is found some 1,750 times in the New Testament, and the standard meaning is well-recognized, one must proceed with extreme caution before announcing that he has found an “exception” to the rule. He must have an overwhelmingly compelling case before thrusting aside hundreds of precedents that suggest a norm. It is interesting that The New American Commentary on Matthew, authored by Craig Blomberg (and published by Broadman, a Baptist firm) makes no comment at all with reference to a causal use of eis in this text.

Before one can argue, therefore, that Matthew 12:41 contains this alleged exception, he must be absolutely positive there is no interpretation that can be placed upon the text in which eis carries its general, forward-looking thrust.

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.

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).

The question now engaging our attention is this: is there any reasonable view of Matthew 12:41 that allows the careful student to assign eis its normal, forward-pointing meaning? The answer is yes; clearly there is.

Here are the facts of the case. The people of Nineveh were in rebellion against God. Because of his concern for the souls of these pagans, Jehovah dispatched his prophet, Jonah, to preach a message of repentance to them. That message was designed to bring them into a penitent state, a reformed life, which would be reflected in turning away from their sins. This is precisely what happened (Jonah 3:10).

By means of a common figure of speech called metonymy—a form of which states a cause, which, in actuality, stands for an effect. Here is an example. When Job said: “My arrow is incurable” (34:6), he referred to an affliction (allegedly rendered by God). The term “arrow,” however, is a form of metonymy, the cause standing for the effect (Terry 1890, 160-161; cf. Dungan n.d., 271-276).

Similarly, as a result of Jonah’s proclamation, the citizens of Nineveh turned, transforming minds and deeds into a reformed state of life demanded by his message. The internationally recognized scholar, J.W. McGarvey, carefully explained the matter in his commentary on Matthew.

The preposition here rendered “at” is eis, which usually means “into.” Some writers have contended that it here means “because of,” or “in consequence of,” a meaning quite foreign to the word. It is true, as a matter of fact, that the Ninevites repented in consequence of the preaching of Jonah; but had it been the purpose of the writer to express this thought, he would have used the preposition dia instead of eis. The thought of the passage is quite distinct from this. They repented into the preaching of Jonah. This is not idiomatic English, but it conveys the exact thought a Greek would derive from the original. The term “preaching” is put for the course of life required by the preaching, and it is asserted that they repented into this. Their repentance, in other words, brought them into the course of life required by the preaching, and it is asserted that they repented into this (1875, 113).

This is a perfectly reasonable explanation of the passage, quite in harmony with the use of the preposition elsewhere in the New Testament. This is a far more responsible exercise of exegetical skills than that which has been proffered by some biased scholars of a bygone era.

[Dordrecht]

Originally Posted by seekerman

I related a true (assuming the UPC evangelist was truthful) story here on the forum just a few weeks ago. The lady was Holy Ghost filled on Sunday night, but killed the following Tuesday in an automobile accident before she was to be baptized on Wednesday.

If baptism is a requirement to miss hell, then she is a Holy Ghost filled, tongue talking individual who is/will be burning in hell for she was not baptized.

Of course the same thing could be said for Holy Ghost filled trinitarians. Holy Ghost filled and baptized but baptized wrong. Their baptism doesn't count, it's not valid so it's the same as them not being baptized. Billions of Holy Ghost filled, tongue talking individuals in heaven because another man said the wrong words over them while immersing them.

Go figure.

[Dordrecht]

Originally Posted by seekerman

They're not hypothetical. See my story above.



Contradictory scripture. Either baptism saves or it does't.

1Pe 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

Does baptism now save us? No, it doesn't, it's baptism plus something else in another scripture....

Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

That passage is at odds with 1 Peter 3:21. Or at the very least, 1 Peter 3:21 is lacking, is incomplete. One cannot take 1 Peter 3:21 at face value.

So a person says, ok I believe and I'm baptized. I'm saved and some would say, hold on, not so fast. Have you received the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues? You may have believed, been baptized (and it must be an acceptable baptism) but you still aren't saved. Even though 1 Peter says you are saved when you're baptized, Jesus Himself said that you must believe and be baptized. Paul was lacking in his discourse. He didn't even mention Spirit baptism.

So, we pick and choose which scriptures to use in order to support our theology and argue and quote and argue and quote and accomplish little, if anything, for the Kingdom of God.

Examples such as this is why the church is powerless, choosing to argue about a flawed book instead of becoming more intimate with God. It's not possible to have deeper intimacy with anyone, including God, by reading about them in a book. It has to be personal.

Enough said.

[Dordrecht]

If the intention was to get baptized, they are saved.

Right....lol...that's a good one.
I guess 99.9% of scholars believe that to be correct as well.
I can't stop laughing.

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by seekerman

I related a true (assuming the UPC evangelist was truthful) story here on the forum just a few weeks ago. The lady was Holy Ghost filled on Sunday night, but killed the following Tuesday in an automobile accident before she was to be baptized on Wednesday.

If baptism is a requirement to miss hell, then she is a Holy Ghost filled, tongue talking individual who is/will be burning in hell for she was not baptized.

Of course the same thing could be said for Holy Ghost filled trinitarians. Holy Ghost filled and baptized but baptized wrong. Their baptism doesn't count, it's not valid so it's the same as them not being baptized. Billions of Holy Ghost filled, tongue talking individuals in heaven because another man said the wrong words over them while immersing them.

Go figure.

I always use the hypothetical example of someone who is killed on their way to the baptismal pool and am usually greeted with "I have never heard of THAT happening!".