"EIS" OR "DIA" OR "HOTI" ??

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

DJ2

Senior Member
Apr 15, 2017
1,660
57
48
I'm not the one who is trying to "shoe horn" works (with a heavy emphasis on water baptism) "into" salvation through faith, not works (Ephesians 2:8,9).

Paul clearly states that we are saved through faith, NOT WORKS, not faith and works (Ephesians 2:8,9). NOWHERE does the Bible say we are "saved by works" or by "faith AND works." Just because genuine faith is evidenced by good works does not mean that we are saved by good works. We are saved FOR good works, NOT BY good works (Ephesians 2:10).

*So once again, the Bible clearly teaches in many passages of scripture that we are saved through belief/faith "apart from additions or modifications." You don't need to add the word "alone" next to belief/faith in those many passages of scripture in order to figure out that the words belief/faith "stand alone" in connection with receiving eternal life/salvation.

Faith in Jesus Christ and His resurrection saves. Christ's finished work of redemption is sufficient and complete to save believers. No supplements needed.

The blind man was cured of blindness after he washed in the Pool of Siloam. He was not saved based on the merits of washing in the Pool of Siloam. Big difference. Faith in Christ alone is sufficient to save because the OBJECT of our faith (Christ and His finished work of redemption) is the all sufficient means of our salvation. No supplements needed.

Without obedience we demonstrate that faith is null and void. Faith that produces no works at all demonstrates that it's an empty profession of faith/dead faith (James 2:14) and not true faith. *Key word for you in James 2:14 -- says or claims to have faith but has no works.

*Please pay close attention - The word "alone" in regards to salvation through faith "in Christ alone" conveys the message that Christ saves us through faith based on the merits of His finished work of redemption "alone" and not based on the merits of our works. It is through faith "in Christ alone" (and not by the merits of our works) that we are justified on account of Christ (Romans 3:24; 5:1; 5:9); yet the faith that justifies is never alone (solitary, unfruitful, barren) if it is genuine (James 2:14-24). *Perfect Harmony.*
Your beliefs are more of a philosophy then a scripture based theology. Your reasoning rests on implying "faith alone" upon verses that say no such thing. If these verses were trying to convey a "faith alone" message it would simply say this and not have to be assumed.

Your philosophy is nothing but a house of cards, pull out what you think is implied but not written and your house falls.

How bizarre for Ananias to command a "saved" Paul to arise and wash away his sins. (Acts 22:16) How very strange.
 

DJ2

Senior Member
Apr 15, 2017
1,660
57
48
Well, I may be one of graceNpeace's "comrades" so I want to point to your above straw man being upfront. ;)

No one who knows and truly represents "faith alone" is divorcing it from Scriptural baptism, and at the same time recognize that baptism adds nothing to the process of salvation. Salvation was already complete at the moment of regeneration and conversion and baptism reflects this transaction.

So the bottom line is you're misrepresenting faith alone, IOW your argument is a straw man.
It is rather hard to misrepresent such a notion as two simple words, "faith alone". It is you and your ilk who are using the term and when called to defend the term are unable to explain its lack of use in the Bible. Explain why such a central and important aspect of your thinking is not mentioned in the scriptures. When you have an answer, we can talk.
 
Dec 28, 2016
9,171
2,718
113
It is rather hard to misrepresent such a notion as two simple words, "faith alone".
Actually it's rather simple to do so when divorced from, uh, like those other four solas that go with it???? That's how you and those of your ilk attack it -- rip it completely out of context and make it say things it never intended. It's the only way you can attack it.

Oh, and great job avoiding the Scriptures. ;)

It is you and your ilk who are using the term and when called to defend the term are unable to explain its lack of use in the Bible. Explain why such a central and important aspect of your thinking is not mentioned in the scriptures. When you have an answer, we can talk.
Again, you completely skipped Scripture given you. You have to. You do it time and again and your false gospel goes from what Christ has wrought to. well, you. That's right; to you. You want the spotlight, you want yourself glorified which is why you won't address passages such as Romans 4.

And again, you take descriptive texts and make them prescriptive -- all false gospelizers do this.

I've adequately defended the term, and you? You skipped right over all of that. Bottom line is you preach a false gospel of works. Paul calls it "another gospel" Galatians 1:8-10. He also makes a pronouncement in that passage concerning those who turn the Gospel of grace into a false gospel of works.

The bottom line is that what Christ has accomplished is enough. Those who are His believe this, those who are not do not believe it at all.
 

tourist

Senior Member
Mar 13, 2014
42,543
17,018
113
69
Tennessee
Actually it's rather simple to do so when divorced from, uh, like those other four solas that go with it???? ;)
I don't know about those other four sodas that you are referring to but I do know that my preferred beverage is Perrier. No questions about it.
 

DJ2

Senior Member
Apr 15, 2017
1,660
57
48
Actually it's rather simple to do so when divorced from, uh, like those other four solas that go with it???? That's how you and those of your ilk attack it -- rip it completely out of context and make it say things it never intended. It's the only way you can attack it.

Oh, and great job avoiding the Scriptures. ;)



Again, you completely skipped Scripture given you. You have to. You do it time and again and your false gospel goes from what Christ has wrought to. well, you. That's right; to you. You want the spotlight, you want yourself glorified which is why you won't address passages such as Romans 4.

And again, you take descriptive texts and make them prescriptive -- all false gospelizers do this.

I've adequately defended the term, and you? You skipped right over all of that. Bottom line is you preach a false gospel of works. Paul calls it "another gospel" Galatians 1:8-10. He also makes a pronouncement in that passage concerning those who turn the Gospel of grace into a false gospel of works.

The bottom line is that what Christ has accomplished is enough. Those who are His believe this, those who are not do not believe it at all.
Again, It is you who is bringing up the term, not I. If it is such a central part of your belief why no mention in its form you have chosen, "faith alone"? If you have no examples of its use, don't bring it up. Its as simple as that.
I am not "skipping" any verses. You have shown no verse that states "faith alone".

If it helps, I will accept "faith only", "faith and nothing else", "exclusively faith", "just faith", "merely faith", "distinctively faith", "solely faith", "uniquely faith".

I will accept any version of the bible, even a paraphrased one.

I will even accept a non-English bible version once I translate it.

Beyond this I can not help you defend your own term. Show me a verse that in any format uses your term for salvation.

You have not "adequately defended the term", you have not even found the term.

You can not, therefore you imply that I am a "false gospelizer".
 

mailmandan

Senior Member
Apr 7, 2014
25,453
13,394
113
58
Talk about a straw-man. Naaman was brought up as an example of obedience being rewarded, in this case healing. No obedience, no healing. Naaman's obedience did not grant him salvation nor did I suggest it. More grasping at straws.
In post #213, you said - "Salvation does not lead to obedience. Obedience leads to salvation." Why would you merely bring up Naaman as an example of obedience being rewarded "no obedience, no healing" when you continuously teach salvation by the obedient act of being water baptized "no baptism, no remission of sins?" You mean to tell me that there was no parallel intended? :eek:
 

mailmandan

Senior Member
Apr 7, 2014
25,453
13,394
113
58
Your beliefs are more of a philosophy then a scripture based theology. Your reasoning rests on implying "faith alone" upon verses that say no such thing. If these verses were trying to convey a "faith alone" message it would simply say this and not have to be assumed.
My beliefs are the result of rightly dividing the word of truth and properly harmonize scripture with scripture. Your beliefs are the result of distorting and perverting passages of scripture as you set out to "patch together" your so called gospel plan in an effort to accommodate your biased church doctrine.

Your philosophy is nothing but a house of cards, pull out what you think is implied but not written and your house falls.
My doctrine is built on the rock, which is Christ. Your doctrine is build on the sinking sand of Campbellism.

How bizarre for Ananias to command a "saved" Paul to arise and wash away his sins. (Acts 22:16) How very strange.
It's not bizarre at all if you understood in what sense baptism washes away sins. Greek Scholar A.T. Robertson explains: As in Romans 6:4-6 where baptism is the picture of death, burial and resurrection, so here baptism pictures the change that had already taken place when Paul surrendered to Jesus on the way. Baptism here pictures the washing away of sins by the blood of Christ.

No scripture is to be interpretated in isololation from the totality of scripture. Practically speaking, a singular and obscure verse is to be subservient to to multiple and clear verses, and not vice versa. For instance, if we find a verse that "on the surface" seems to teach that baptism is required for salvation or that we are saved by works, but then have multiple other verses that teach otherwise, are we to allow the odd verse to alter the clear meaning of the many? NO. The "washing away of sin" in water baptism is only "formal" or symbolic, as Alexander Campbell had said in the McCalla debate. It did not refer to the washing of the soul. This occurred earlier when Paul came to faith in Christ. Water baptism brought no change to the heart and mind of Paul. All inner change had already occurred prior to his water baptism.
 

DJ2

Senior Member
Apr 15, 2017
1,660
57
48
My beliefs are the result of rightly dividing the word of truth and properly harmonize scripture with scripture. Your beliefs are the result of distorting and perverting passages of scripture as you set out to "patch together" your so called gospel plan in an effort to accommodate your biased church doctrine.

My doctrine is built on the rock, which is Christ. Your doctrine is build on the sinking sand of Campbellism.

It's not bizarre at all if you understood in what sense baptism washes away sins. Greek Scholar A.T. Robertson explains: As in Romans 6:4-6 where baptism is the picture of death, burial and resurrection, so here baptism pictures the change that had already taken place when Paul surrendered to Jesus on the way. Baptism here pictures the washing away of sins by the blood of Christ.

No scripture is to be interpretated in isololation from the totality of scripture. Practically speaking, a singular and obscure verse is to be subservient to to multiple and clear verses, and not vice versa. For instance, if we find a verse that "on the surface" seems to teach that baptism is required for salvation or that we are saved by works, but then have multiple other verses that teach otherwise, are we to allow the odd verse to alter the clear meaning of the many? NO. The "washing away of sin" in water baptism is only "formal" or symbolic, as Alexander Campbell had said in the McCalla debate. It did not refer to the washing of the soul. This occurred earlier when Paul came to faith in Christ. Water baptism brought no change to the heart and mind of Paul. All inner change had already occurred prior to his water baptism.
You are the only one bringing up Campbellism. Your labeling me as such is but a diversion, a grasping at straws. If you have no better argument then to call me a "Campbellite" just give up.

Your beliefs are but a man made philosophy based on the many extra-biblical sources you have referenced. Alexander Campbell, A.T. Robertson, McCalla, E. Calvin Beisner, Julius Mantey, Kenneth Wuest, Daniel Wallace, etc. The bible is my guide, these men are yours. The Bible is clear. There are NO versions of the bible that refer "eis" as "because of". You know this so you refer to men in place of scripture to defend your claim.

So stop bringing up men and labeling me with them. It is you who insist on using extra-biblical sources. I have never. This is plain to see by your posts. At least seven men mentioned by you and none by me, yet you label me a follower of them?

I quote Acts 22:16 as written.

You twist its meaning by using Campbell's views on it because it fits your theology, "formal or symbolic".

Then you call me a Campbellite all in the same post!

It is time for you to show your hand. Stop with the modern day "experts" and show us the version that refers "eis" as "because of".

If you cannot, stand aside. The OP stands unchallenged.
 

graceNpeace

Senior Member
Aug 12, 2016
2,180
107
63
If Acts 22:16 means exactly what you say it does (that water baptism in and of itself is needed to wash away sins and actually function as the gateway of salvation) then how is it the Apostle Paul can write a whole epistle to the Romans about salvation and justification by faith and the word "baptized" appears only once (Rom 6:3) and NOT in connection with water baptism.

Surely, if water baptism occupies such a central position in salvation, then Paul would be obliged to engage with this reality. How could he NOT carefully explain to us that salvation is a function of justification by faith AND water baptism. That water baptism is required in order to ACTUALLY wash away our sins.
In Romans Paul teases out every possible detail explaining how justification by faith works yet he neglects to tell us just how crucial water baptism really is!
This, in the most complete description of what salvation is, or is not, that is extant in the New Testament!

Obviously, Paul was highly negligent in misleading everyone by concluding "[FONT=&quot]that a man is [/FONT]justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law." Rom 3:28, without telling us unequivocally that it is meaningless apart from us actually being water baptized!
 

mailmandan

Senior Member
Apr 7, 2014
25,453
13,394
113
58
You are the only one bringing up Campbellism. Your labeling me as such is but a diversion, a grasping at straws. If you have no better argument then to call me a "Campbellite" just give up.
I at one time had attended the so called "church of Christ" so I understand all about your Campbellism theories.

Your beliefs are but a man made philosophy based on the many extra-biblical sources you have referenced. Alexander Campbell, A.T. Robertson, McCalla, E. Calvin Beisner, Julius Mantey, Kenneth Wuest, Daniel Wallace, etc. The bible is my guide, these men are yours. The Bible is clear. There are NO versions of the bible that refer "eis" as "because of". You know this so you refer to men in place of scripture to defend your claim.
My beliefs on salvation through faith (rightly understood) in Christ alone are based on scripture (Ephesians 2:8,9). These men may further validate what I believe, yet I became a believer in Christ before I even knew who these men were. The Bible is your guide (only as it's filtered through the biased teachings of the so called church of Christ).

There is not a version of the Bible that translates Acts 2:38, "Repent, and be baptized...in order to obtain the remission of sins." Greek scholar A.T. Robertson manifests the position that the preposition "eis" has no uniform usage so as to set it's definition in such concrete form which would make it possible to construct a doctrine upon its meaning. J.H. Thayer devotes several columns in his Lexicon to the preposition "eis," and among his listings he has the following: "of reference or relation; with respect to, in reference to, as regards." As an illustration, he cites Matthew 12:41, "they repented AT (eis) the preaching of Jonah." Thayer says this means "out of regard to the substance of his preaching." Here it would be ridiculous to follow your idea and say they repented AT "in order to obtain" the preaching of Jonah.

The popular text, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, by H.E. Dana and J.R. Mantey, classifies "eis" in five of eight categories in a chart entitled, "Prepositional Meanings Classied." Here are the categories and meanings as pertaining to "eis."

Direction: into, unto, to
Position: in, among, upon
Relation: as, for, against, in respect to
Cause: because of
Purpose: for the purpose of

*Among the Liddell and Scott Lexicon is "in regards to." It is not necessary to multiply quotations from scholarship to establish the fact that "eis" has "different shades of meaning." An examination of the more than seventeen hundred times the word is used in the New Testament will convince any careful student of this fact. That "eis" has different meanings simply establishes the fact that your church cannot be so dogmatic as to build a theological structure upon one of the word's possible meanings. A doctrine, such as baptismal remission, necessitating that a person be immersed or perish in eternal destruction, should certainly have more confirmation than the fact that one of the possible meanings of "eis" is "in order to."

In Liddell & Scott, Greek-English Lexicon, the standard lexicon for classical Greek, we find the following uses of the word:
Of place ("into," "to," less commonly "before," "upon," "for")
Of time ("up to," "until," "near," "for," "with")
To express measure or limit ("as far as," "as much as," "so far as," "about," "by")
To express relation ("towards," "in regard to")

Of an end or limit, including the idea of purpose or object ("in," "into," "for," "to the purpose")
In Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, the standard lexicon for Biblical Greek and early Christian writings, we find the following meanings of the word:

Of place ("into," "in," "toward," "to," "among," "near," "to," "on," "toward")
Of time ("to," "until," "for," "on," "in," "for," "throughout")
To indicate degree ("to," "completely," "fully")
To indicate the goal, including to show the result or purpose ("unto," "to," "against," "in," "for," "into," "to," "so that," "in order to," "for")
To denote reference to a person or thing ("for," "to," "with respect" or "reference to")
Some more minor uses.

In Abbott-Smith, A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament; Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament, and Dana & Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, we find very similar meanings.

*Greek scholar A. T. Robertson, was probably the greatest Greek scholar of his day. He authored a large Greek Grammar, as well as a six volume series entitled, Word Pictures in the New Testament. In his comments on Acts 2:38 he shows how the grammar of this verse can be used to support more than one interpretation of this text. He then reaches this conclusion: “One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not. "My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission. So I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received.” The illustrations of both usages are numerous in the N.T. and the Koin, generally (Robertson, Grammar, page 592). Amen! :)

Many modern translaters have interpreted the Greek word EIS as meaning that repentance was the basis for their baptism.

Amplified - "because of" repentance
Renaissance - "because of" repentance
Phillips - "as a sign of" your repentance
Goodspeed - "as a token of" your repentance
Williams - "to picture" your repentance
Twentieth Century - "to teach" repentance
Living Bible - "baptize those who repent of their sins"

So stop bringing up men and labeling me with them. It is you who insist on using extra-biblical sources. I have never. This is plain to see by your posts. At least seven men mentioned by you and none by me, yet you label me a follower of them?
Your theology has originated with uninspired men, namely THOMAS CAMPBELL, ALEXANDER CAMPBELL, WALTER SCOTT, and BARTON W. STONE. The various roles of the Campbells along with Walter Scott and Barton W. Stone are clearly detailed from "Campbellian" writings and biographies. Did these men actually "restore" the Gospel, the Church, and true New Testament worship, as they claim, or did they simply create another sect bent on a more dogmatic sectarianism than others they renounced? You can believe the truth or the sales pitch of your church.

I quote Acts 22:16 as written.

You twist its meaning by using Campbell's views on it because it fits your theology, "formal or symbolic".

Then you call me a Campbellite all in the same post!
It is time for you to show your hand. Stop with the modern day "experts" and show us the version that refers "eis" as "because of".

If you cannot, stand aside. The OP stands unchallenged.
Stand aside? LOL! It's obvious you are a Campbellite. Roman Catholics quote John 6:54 "as it is written" and come up with the false doctrine of "transubstantiation." Do you believe that false doctrine as well or do you understand that Jesus was speaking SYMBOLICALLY? Eating and drinking is not with the mouth and the digestive organs of our bodies, but the reception of God’s grace by believing in Christ, as He makes abundantly clear by repeating the same truths both in metaphoric and plain language. Compare the following two verses:

"Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life" (vs. 47).

"He who eats this bread will live forever" (vs. 58).

"He who believes" in Christ is equivalent to "he who eats this bread" because the result is the same, eternal life. The parallel is even also seen in verses 40 and 54:

"Everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day" (vs. 40).

"Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day" (vs. 54).

John chapter 6 does not afford any support to the false Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. On the contrary, it is an emphatic statement on the primacy of faith as the means by which we receive the grace of God. Jesus is the Bread of Life; we eat of Him and are satisfied when we believe in Him.

The first question that must be answered in regards to Acts 22:16 is "when was Paul saved?" Paul tells that he did not receive or hear the Gospel from Ananias, but rather he heard it directly from Christ. Galatians 1:11-12 says, "For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ."

Paul had repented (Acts 9:6). "Lord, what will you have me to do?" Repentance means a "change of mind," and is wrought by the grace of God. Paul once persecuted the Lord (Acts 9:5), but is now ready to serve Him. Paul had believed. He had Christ as his Lord (Acts 9:6). The Bible tells us that "no man can say that Jesus is Lord except "by" the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:3). Paul had, by the work of the Holy Spirit, submitted to Christ as Lord. Paul prayed (Acts 9:11). "Behold, he is praying," the Lord said to Ananias. This indicates that Paul's praying was pleasing to God. People in the church of Christ teach that God does not hear an unsaved man's prayer, quoting in this regard John 9:31 - "We know that God does not listen to sinners. He listens to the godly man who does his will." Well, Paul was a worshipper of God, calling Christ "Lord" and ready to serve Him. All of these things characterized Paul BEFORE he was water baptized. So, Paul heard and believed in Christ prior to getting water baptized.

Paul had already believed in Christ when Ananias came to pray for him to receive his sight (Acts 9:17). It also should be noted that Paul at the time when Ananias prayed for him to receive his sight, he was filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 9:17)--this was before he was water baptized (Acts 9:18). Verse 17 connects his being filled with the Spirit with the receiving of his sight. We know that he received his sight prior to his water baptism.

It's also interesting that when Paul recounted this event again later in Acts (Acts 26:12-18), he did not mention Ananias or what Ananias said to him at all. Verse 18 again would confirm the idea that Paul received Christ as Savior on the road to Damascus since here Christ is telling Paul he will be a messenger for Him concerning forgiveness of sins for Gentiles as they have faith in Him. It would seem unlikely that Christ would commission Paul if Paul had not yet believed in Him and was not yet saved.
 

DJ2

Senior Member
Apr 15, 2017
1,660
57
48
I at one time had attended the so called "church of Christ" so I understand all about your Campbellism theories.

My beliefs on salvation through faith (rightly understood) in Christ alone are based on scripture (Ephesians 2:8,9). These men may further validate what I believe, yet I became a believer in Christ before I even knew who these men were. The Bible is your guide (only as it's filtered through the biased teachings of the so called church of Christ).

There is not a version of the Bible that translates Acts 2:38, "Repent, and be baptized...in order to obtain the remission of sins." Greek scholar A.T. Robertson manifests the position that the preposition "eis" has no uniform usage so as to set it's definition in such concrete form which would make it possible to construct a doctrine upon its meaning. J.H. Thayer devotes several columns in his Lexicon to the preposition "eis," and among his listings he has the following: "of reference or relation; with respect to, in reference to, as regards." As an illustration, he cites Matthew 12:41, "they repented AT (eis) the preaching of Jonah." Thayer says this means "out of regard to the substance of his preaching." Here it would be ridiculous to follow your idea and say they repented AT "in order to obtain" the preaching of Jonah.

The popular text, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, by H.E. Dana and J.R. Mantey, classifies "eis" in five of eight categories in a chart entitled, "Prepositional Meanings Classied." Here are the categories and meanings as pertaining to "eis."

Direction: into, unto, to
Position: in, among, upon
Relation: as, for, against, in respect to
Cause: because of
Purpose: for the purpose of

*Among the Liddell and Scott Lexicon is "in regards to." It is not necessary to multiply quotations from scholarship to establish the fact that "eis" has "different shades of meaning." An examination of the more than seventeen hundred times the word is used in the New Testament will convince any careful student of this fact. That "eis" has different meanings simply establishes the fact that your church cannot be so dogmatic as to build a theological structure upon one of the word's possible meanings. A doctrine, such as baptismal remission, necessitating that a person be immersed or perish in eternal destruction, should certainly have more confirmation than the fact that one of the possible meanings of "eis" is "in order to."

In Liddell & Scott, Greek-English Lexicon, the standard lexicon for classical Greek, we find the following uses of the word:
Of place ("into," "to," less commonly "before," "upon," "for")
Of time ("up to," "until," "near," "for," "with")
To express measure or limit ("as far as," "as much as," "so far as," "about," "by")
To express relation ("towards," "in regard to")

Of an end or limit, including the idea of purpose or object ("in," "into," "for," "to the purpose")
In Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, the standard lexicon for Biblical Greek and early Christian writings, we find the following meanings of the word:

Of place ("into," "in," "toward," "to," "among," "near," "to," "on," "toward")
Of time ("to," "until," "for," "on," "in," "for," "throughout")
To indicate degree ("to," "completely," "fully")
To indicate the goal, including to show the result or purpose ("unto," "to," "against," "in," "for," "into," "to," "so that," "in order to," "for")
To denote reference to a person or thing ("for," "to," "with respect" or "reference to")
Some more minor uses.

In Abbott-Smith, A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament; Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament, and Dana & Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, we find very similar meanings.

*Greek scholar A. T. Robertson, was probably the greatest Greek scholar of his day. He authored a large Greek Grammar, as well as a six volume series entitled, Word Pictures in the New Testament. In his comments on Acts 2:38 he shows how the grammar of this verse can be used to support more than one interpretation of this text. He then reaches this conclusion: “One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not. "My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission. So I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received.” The illustrations of both usages are numerous in the N.T. and the Koin, generally (Robertson, Grammar, page 592). Amen! :)

Many modern translaters have interpreted the Greek word EIS as meaning that repentance was the basis for their baptism.

Amplified - "because of" repentance
Renaissance - "because of" repentance
Phillips - "as a sign of" your repentance
Goodspeed - "as a token of" your repentance
Williams - "to picture" your repentance
Twentieth Century - "to teach" repentance
Living Bible - "baptize those who repent of their sins"

Your theology has originated with uninspired men, namely THOMAS CAMPBELL, ALEXANDER CAMPBELL, WALTER SCOTT, and BARTON W. STONE. The various roles of the Campbells along with Walter Scott and Barton W. Stone are clearly detailed from "Campbellian" writings and biographies. Did these men actually "restore" the Gospel, the Church, and true New Testament worship, as they claim, or did they simply create another sect bent on a more dogmatic sectarianism than others they renounced? You can believe the truth or the sales pitch of your church.
Stand aside? LOL! It's obvious you are a Campbellite. Roman Catholics quote John 6:54 "as it is written" and come up with the false doctrine of "transubstantiation." Do you believe that false doctrine as well or do you understand that Jesus was speaking SYMBOLICALLY? Eating and drinking is not with the mouth and the digestive organs of our bodies, but the reception of God’s grace by believing in Christ, as He makes abundantly clear by repeating the same truths both in metaphoric and plain language. Compare the following two verses:

"Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life" (vs. 47).

"He who eats this bread will live forever" (vs. 58).

"He who believes" in Christ is equivalent to "he who eats this bread" because the result is the same, eternal life. The parallel is even also seen in verses 40 and 54:

"Everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day" (vs. 40).

"Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day" (vs. 54).

John chapter 6 does not afford any support to the false Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. On the contrary, it is an emphatic statement on the primacy of faith as the means by which we receive the grace of God. Jesus is the Bread of Life; we eat of Him and are satisfied when we believe in Him.

The first question that must be answered in regards to Acts 22:16 is "when was Paul saved?" Paul tells that he did not receive or hear the Gospel from Ananias, but rather he heard it directly from Christ. Galatians 1:11-12 says, "For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ."

Paul had repented (Acts 9:6). "Lord, what will you have me to do?" Repentance means a "change of mind," and is wrought by the grace of God. Paul once persecuted the Lord (Acts 9:5), but is now ready to serve Him. Paul had believed. He had Christ as his Lord (Acts 9:6). The Bible tells us that "no man can say that Jesus is Lord except "by" the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:3). Paul had, by the work of the Holy Spirit, submitted to Christ as Lord. Paul prayed (Acts 9:11). "Behold, he is praying," the Lord said to Ananias. This indicates that Paul's praying was pleasing to God. People in the church of Christ teach that God does not hear an unsaved man's prayer, quoting in this regard John 9:31 - "We know that God does not listen to sinners. He listens to the godly man who does his will." Well, Paul was a worshipper of God, calling Christ "Lord" and ready to serve Him. All of these things characterized Paul BEFORE he was water baptized. So, Paul heard and believed in Christ prior to getting water baptized.

Paul had already believed in Christ when Ananias came to pray for him to receive his sight (Acts 9:17). It also should be noted that Paul at the time when Ananias prayed for him to receive his sight, he was filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 9:17)--this was before he was water baptized (Acts 9:18). Verse 17 connects his being filled with the Spirit with the receiving of his sight. We know that he received his sight prior to his water baptism.

It's also interesting that when Paul recounted this event again later in Acts (Acts 26:12-18), he did not mention Ananias or what Ananias said to him at all. Verse 18 again would confirm the idea that Paul received Christ as Savior on the road to Damascus since here Christ is telling Paul he will be a messenger for Him concerning forgiveness of sins for Gentiles as they have faith in Him. It would seem unlikely that Christ would commission Paul if Paul had not yet believed in Him and was not yet saved.
I too was a unbeliever at one time so I understand your "faith alone" theories.

I became a believer in Christ and still do not know who these people are nor care.

There is not a version of the Bible that translates Acts 2:38 as what?

The Good New Bible 1966 - "be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, so that your sins will be forgiven"
God's Word Bible 1995 - "each one of you must be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven"
The New American Bible 1970- "be baptized each one of you, in the of Jesus Christ that your sins may be forgiven"
The New Testament in Modern English 1958 - "be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, so that you may have your sins forgiven"

There are many more like this if you are willing to go to the library.

"Eis" has different meanings? All words, English or Greek have different meanings!. This is nothing but mudding up the waters on a verse that scholars have had no trouble translating. All versions reject the use of "because of". Can you not see this? Look at your own Bible does it say "because of".

"Eis" can mean "because of"? Try that logic on Matthew 26:28. The same "eis" is used there also. Did Jesus shed His blood "because of" the already forgiven sins or "in order to get" the remission of sins?

Scott, Stone, Campbell are all smoke screens and have nothing to do with this issue. You are bringing them up to divert.

The Roman Catholic Church and transustantiation has no bearing on Acts 2:38.

Your long winded banter does not change the simple message Peter was proclaiming to the crowds and your attempts at negating it with general statements such as John 3:16 are childish. If John 3:16 is all encompassing, Acts 2:38 should not even exist.

Again, if this is the best you got, stand aside. The OP stands unchallenged.
 

fredoheaven

Senior Member
Nov 17, 2015
4,098
959
113
I too was a unbeliever at one time so I understand your "faith alone" theories.

I became a believer in Christ and still do not know who these people are nor care.

There is not a version of the Bible that translates Acts 2:38 as what?

The Good New Bible 1966 - "be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, so that your sins will be forgiven"
God's Word Bible 1995 - "each one of you must be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven"
The New American Bible 1970- "be baptized each one of you, in the of Jesus Christ that your sins may be forgiven"
The New Testament in Modern English 1958 - "be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, so that you may have your sins forgiven"

There are many more like this if you are willing to go to the library.

"Eis" has different meanings? All words, English or Greek have different meanings!. This is nothing but mudding up the waters on a verse that scholars have had no trouble translating. All versions reject the use of "because of". Can you not see this? Look at your own Bible does it say "because of".

"Eis" can mean "because of"? Try that logic on Matthew 26:28. The same "eis" is used there also. Did Jesus shed His blood "because of" the already forgiven sins or "in order to get" the remission of sins?

Scott, Stone, Campbell are all smoke screens and have nothing to do with this issue. You are bringing them up to divert.

The Roman Catholic Church and transustantiation has no bearing on Acts 2:38.

Your long winded banter does not change the simple message Peter was proclaiming to the crowds and your attempts at negating it with general statements such as John 3:16 are childish. If John 3:16 is all encompassing, Acts 2:38 should not even exist.

Again, if this is the best you got, stand aside. The OP stands unchallenged.
Well, translation of the Greek word “eis” in English will depend on the context and as far as Acts 2:38 is concern, the word has been translated as “for” in the KJV to mean “because of” not “in order to get”. A simple reason is that the two word English “because of” was not used in any Bible versions since this reflects already the intended meaning of the English word “for”. Why used ”because of” when we have “for”.

Now you are trying to question the meaning “because of” but why? Is this incorrect? I believe it is correct.
 

mailmandan

Senior Member
Apr 7, 2014
25,453
13,394
113
58
I too was a unbeliever at one time so I understand your "faith alone" theories.
Believers trust exclusively in Christ as the ALL-sufficient means of their salvation. Believers DO NOT trust in "water and works" for salvation. I was an unbeliever several years ago, prior to my conversion to Christ, while I was still attending the Roman Catholic church and the so called church of Christ. *It was not until I placed my faith (belief, trust, reliance) in CHRIST ALONE for salvation that I became a BELIEVER.

You obviously do not understand the difference between faith (rightly understood) in Christ alone for salvation (Ephesians 2:8,9) which is not to be confused with an empty profession of faith/dead faith that remains alone -- "barren of works" (James 2:14). Prior to my conversion to Christ I did not understand the difference either.

I became a believer in Christ and still do not know who these people are nor care.
So exactly how did you become a believer in Christ? Please explain to me exactly what you believe NOW that you consider no longer makes you an unbeliever, but a believer.

There is not a version of the Bible that translates Acts 2:38 as what?

The Good New Bible 1966 - "be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, so that your sins will be forgiven"
God's Word Bible 1995 - "each one of you must be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven"
The New American Bible 1970- "be baptized each one of you, in the of Jesus Christ that your sins may be forgiven"
The New Testament in Modern English 1958 - "be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, so that you may have your sins forgiven"

There are many more like this if you are willing to go to the library.
Again, there is not a version of the Bible that translates Acts 2:38, "Repent, and be baptized...in order to obtain the remission of sins." *Greek scholar A.T. Robertson manifests the position that the preposition "eis" has no uniform usage so as to set it's definition in such concrete form which would make it possible to construct a doctrine upon its meaning.

Many modern translaters have interpreted the Greek word EIS as meaning that repentance was the basis for their baptism.

Amplified - "because of" repentance
Renaissance - "because of" repentance
Phillips - "as a sign of" your repentance
Goodspeed - "as a token of" your repentance
Williams - "to picture" your repentance
Twentieth Century - "to teach" repentance
Living Bible - "baptize those who repent of their sins"

"Eis" has different meanings? All words, English or Greek have different meanings!. This is nothing but mudding up the waters on a verse that scholars have had no trouble translating. All versions reject the use of "because of". Can you not see this? Look at your own Bible does it say "because of".
There is no mudding up the waters here. I already quoted numerous Greek scholars, but you stubbornly refuse to hear the truth and all for the sake of accommodating your biased church doctrine. We can argue "he said vs. they said" all day long, but what ultimately matters is *SCRIPTURE MUST HARMONIZE WITH SCRIPTURE.*

*In Acts 2:38, "for the remission of sins" does not refer back to both clauses, "you all repent" and "each one of you be baptized," but refers only to the first. Peter is saying "repent unto the remission of your sins," the same as in Acts 3:19. The clause "each one of you be baptized" is parenthetical. This is exactly what Acts 3:19 teaches except that Peter omits the parenthesis.

*Also compare the fact that these Gentiles in Acts 10:45 received the gift of the Holy Spirit (compare with Acts 2:38 - the gift of the Holy Spirit) and this was BEFORE water baptism (Acts 10:47).

*In Acts 10:43 we read ..whoever believes in Him receives remission of sins. Again, these Gentiles received the gift of the Holy Spirit - Acts 10:45 - (compare with Acts 2:38 - the gift of the Holy Spirit) when they believed on the Lord Jesus Christ - Acts 11:17 - (compare with Acts 16:31 - Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved) BEFORE water baptism - Acts 10:47 - this is referred to as repentance unto life - Acts 11:18.

*So the only logical conclusion when properly HARMONIZING SCRIPTURE WITH SCRIPTURE is that faith in Jesus Christ "implied in genuine repentance" (rather than water baptism) brings the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31; 26:18). *PERFECT HARMONY*

"Eis" can mean "because of"? Try that logic on Matthew 26:28. The same "eis" is used there also. Did Jesus shed His blood "because of" the already forgiven sins or "in order to get" the remission of sins?
Just use "in reference to" in both verses. In Acts 2:38, baptism is for "in reference to" a declarative remission. In Matthew 26:28, Jesus shed His blood for "in reference to" a literal remission. Christ procured the literal remission of sins in His death and baptism is an ordinance which professes and declares this fact.

Let's try your logic on Matthew 3:11 - I baptize you with water for (eis) repentance.. Did John baptize in water for "in order to obtain" repentance or for "in reference to/in regards to" repentance? Obviously you don't baptize a new believer in order to obtain repentance, but BECAUSE they already repented.

Scott, Stone, Campbell are all smoke screens and have nothing to do with this issue. You are bringing them up to divert.
They have everything to do with your Campbellism theories so no smoke screen here. Your Campbellism gospel is nothing but smoke and mirrors.

The Roman Catholic Church and transustantiation has no bearing on Acts 2:38.
We were discussing Acts 22:16 when I brought up the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation because you said that you read Acts 22:16 "as written" which resulted in your belief that water baptism "literally" washes away sins, just as Roman Catholics read John 6:54 "as written" which resulted in their belief that the bread and wine are the "literal" body and blood of Christ. In Acts 22:16, how did baptism "wash away" Paul's sins? Well, it couldn't do this literally, for Christ literally "put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself" (Hebrews 9:26). The language in Acts 22:16 is similar to the statement of Christ when He took the bread and said, "This is my body" (Matthew 26:26). The bread was only the emblem of His body. Baptism is the emblem of the washing away of sins by the blood of Christ. Every time a believer is immersed he washes away his sins in the same SENSE Paul did: not literally, but ceremonially, pointing to the death of Christ by which sins were actually washed away.

Your long winded banter does not change the simple message Peter was proclaiming to the crowds and your attempts at negating it with general statements such as John 3:16 are childish. If John 3:16 is all encompassing, Acts 2:38 should not even exist.
Your biased interpretation of Acts 2:38 does not negate Acts 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9. What was Peter proclaiming in Acts 10:43? *..whoever believes in Him receives remission of sins. *What happened to baptism? *Peter said nothing about getting water baptized here in Acts 10:43 in order to receive remission of sins. hmm... *John 3:16 clearly states that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. *Nothing mentioned there about water baptism either. hmm...

Again, if this is the best you got, stand aside.
That statement is the epitome of irony! :rolleyes:

The OP stands unchallenged.
The OP has not only been challenged, it has been defeated. When are you going to stop fighting against the truth and believe the gospel?