If the argument is NOT absurd, then why don't ALL Greek scholars unanimously agree with you?
Apparently then it's not absurd either way, since not all Greek scholars are in agreement, eh? But what is the truth and does it harmonize with the rest of scripture? Once again, as AT Robertson summed it up -
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.
If this is Robertson's argument surely you can see through this. What he is doing is attempting to change the word order suggesting that this will change the meaning. First of all, changing the word order is textual manipulation. The word order is fixed and is compatible to the English syntax in this instance.
The meaning MUST harmonize with Acts 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9 etc.. and your interpretation does not. You manipulated these passages of scripture in order to force them to "conform" to your biased interpretation of Acts 2:38. Why should I believe you over AT Robertson or Daniel Wallace or E Calvin Beisner?
This also shows that he feels changing the word order is necessary in order to support his soteriology. Second, even if the word order is changed this does not change the function of "each one of you." This is still second person pl linked to the imperative. Now, like I have said, I am no Greek scholar and I am certainly not worthy to even be in the same room with someone of Robertson's ability but I find it hard to believe that any man of Robertson's expertise in Greek would go to such lengths to manipulate the grammar.
Like you said, you are no Greek scholar and am certainly not worthy to even be in the same room with someone of Robertson's ability, so why should I listen to you over him? You went to great lengths to manipulate Acts 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9 etc..
Beisner is doing the same think Robertson is doing. He knows what the Greek is saying and he does not like what it says so he attempts to justify manipulating the grammar. This is nothing less than dishonest.
They would probably say the same thing about you and about how you manipulated Acts 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9.
His argument is in harmony with Acts 3:19; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31 and salvation through faith, not works, and your argument is not so I disagree with you and agree with Robertson. He knows how to harmonize scripture with scripture.
Wallace is making an theological argument here not a grammatical one. Notice what Wallace says, "if they have had", "This may...explain". Wallace is not a promoter of baptism for the remission of sin.
His argument is in harmony with Acts 3:19; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31 and salvation through faith, not works, so I agree with Wallace.
Wallace is correct however, Baptism is not the cause of salvation and baptism is indeed a picture or as I prefer to call it a revealed symbol.
Amen! That's more than I've heard most people who attend the church of Christ admit to!
This does not however mean that it is not linked to the process of salvation.
How is
have been saved through faith (Ephesians 2:8) a process? Salvation is signified, yet nor procured in baptism.
Acts 2:38 could not be clearer on this point. Paul also defends this in Romans 6.
Paul understands that water baptism is the picture and not the reality. Romans 6:3-4 "on the surface" appears to support the idea that baptism is the instrumental cause of salvation. However, even here baptism could be understood as the sign or symbol of salvation. It is not unusual in scripture to call the reality by the name of its sign. Thus, for example, Paul says that all Christians are circumcised (even though one may not be physically circumcised) - meaning that they possess what circumcision signifies (Philippians 3:3). Using this kind of language, Paul can speak of the great reality of the believers’ spiritual union with Christ, and the benefits which flow from that union, in terms of baptism, its sign or symbol. We are forced to give this interpretation by the context. Before mentioning baptism in chapter 6, Paul had repeatedly emphasized that FAITH, not baptism is the instrumental cause of salvation/justification (Romans 1:16; 3:22-30; 4:4-6, 13; 5:1). That is when the old man was put to death and united in the likeness of His death, which water baptism
symbolizes and pictures. Righteousness is “imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised up because of our justification” (Romans 4:24,25). Since believers receive the benefits of Christ’s death and resurrection (justification), and that through faith, believers must be spiritually united to Him (delivered and raised up with Him). If baptism is taken as the instrumental cause, then Paul contradicts what he had established before, namely that justification is by FAITH, not baptism. *Hermeneutics.
"eis" NEVER, NEVER, NEVER points backward, always forward.
That's not true.
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")
In Matthew 3:11, we read - "I baptize you with water for "eis" repentance. Is this baptism for "in order to obtain" repentance or "in regards to/on the basis of repentance?" You don't get baptized without first repenting. Getting baptized in order to obtain repentance is ridiculous! Just like you don't baptize unbelievers in order to make them believers, but because they are believers.
Here is an article written by the renoun Greek scholar and translator Hugo Mccord.
The Greek preposition EIS is always prospective (looking forward), never retrospective (looking back) which means that forgiveness follows Baptism...EIS shows movement "into" and it always does. In Acts 2:38 repentance and baptism are INTO forgiveness of sins.
Nice try but why should I listen to Hugo Mccord? He is wrong right out of the starting gate. EIS is not ALWAYS looking backward, as demonstrated from the Liddell & Scott, Greek-English Lexicon; and Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon.
That the direction of the preposition EIS is always prospective is the opinion of Greek scholarship.
Obviously not ALL Greek scholarship.
Consider the following:
"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).
Though Wallace did not come to believe that baptism is necessary for salvation, he clearly refutes the causal "because of" meaning in Acts 2:38.[SUP]1[/SUP]
Baptism is not the means of salvation and the casual meaning is not the only argument for Acts 2:38, so discredit Wallace all you want. You won't change my mind. I grew up in the Roman Catholic church and had spent some time in the church of Christ prior to my conversion and have heard all of the sales pitches, so good luck fooling me.
In Acts 2:38 EIS is not looking back at one's forgiveness and in Matthew 12:41 it is not looking back at Jonah's preaching.
Again, the casual argument is not the only argument for Acts 2:38, but speaking of looking back, is baptism looking back at repentance in Matthew 3:11 or does baptism obtain repentance? Does repentance precede baptism or does baptism precede repentance?
So as to remove the necessity of Baptism, many of our Baptist friends have taken to explaining Acts 2:38 in ways never depicted in a single translation of the Bible. That's significant!
What is significant is that your interpretation of Acts 2:38 is not in harmony with Acts 3:19; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31 and salvation through belief/faith "apart from additions or modifications." What happened to baptism in John 3:15,16,18,36; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26; Acts 10:43; 13:39; 16:31; Romans 1:16; 3:22-28; 4:4-6; 5:1; 10:4; 1 Corinthians 1:21; Ephesians 2:8,9 etc..? That's significant!
They say that the Greek preposition EIS, that says, "repent and let each of you be baptized FOR the remission of sins" may have a causal (read retrospective "because of") meaning which would support their position that salvation precedes baptism (regretably for them, if this were true, salvation would also precede repentance since they argue that only 'belief' is necessary).
Repentance is necessary for salvation and repentance precedes saving belief in Christ. "Belief/Faith" in the churches of Christ is understood as nothing more than "intellectual assent" or accepting the facts of the Christian faith. To them it is believing God’s historical testimony about Himself, Jesus Christ, and that of the rest of the Bible. Repentance on the other hand is understood as moral "self-reformation." In regards to Belief/Faith, those in the churches of Christ often fail to understand that there is a
deeper, more substantive aspect of faith which is believing (trusting) in Jesus Christ for eternal life, and most cannot distinguish between mere intellectual belief or assent from a
personal faith that is trusting exclusively in Jesus Christ for salvation. This also explains why you have so much faith in water and works.
In their view, one's baptism looks back to one's first point of salvation. However, the meaning of EIS, translated in the English as "for" never has a causal, retrospective meaning.
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. That makes the most sense to me and is in harmony with Acts 3:19; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31 and the many many verses that make it clear that salvation is through believing in Him/faith "apart from additions or modifications".
Now, I am sure we can continue to post arguments and counter arguments from a wide variety of reputable scholars. Personally I am not interested in doing this.
ULTIMATELY, scripture MUST harmonize with scripture. That is the BOTTOM LINE for me, regardless of what he said, they said.
