'For' or 'because of'
- Thread starter oldhermit
- Start date
-
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.
The difference is this. Robertson is allowing his personal soteriology to influence his reading of the text. This is forcing a meaning and definition onto the text that the language of the text does not support. Robertson even admits this. The goal is not to allow personal beliefs to drive our reading of the text but to allow the language of the text to formulate our soteriology.
It goes back to my point above.....there are 98646 different flavors of salvation being pushed in the name of Christ.....only 1 is correct.....many stand on Acts 2:38 as their go to verse to base their doctrine of salvation on, while ignoring all the verses that teach contrary to baptismal regeneration.....the bible does not contradict itself and if you have hundreds of verses in context that teach salvation totally apart from and or not mentioning immersion whatsoever at all and maybe a few that seem to teach baptismal regeneration that can also be viewed from a different aspect...then we must WEIGH all verses on the subject...........the bible states clearly that immersion is an ACT of obedience (the 1st act of obedience) it is a WORK of righteousness and the bible is clear....Works of righteousness do not save, yet are the result of the salvation one already possesses by faith.
That is my point.....comparing spiritual with spiritual.......not just going to seed on 1 or 2 verses to form a doctrine
-
1
- Show all
So, what you are saying is that you have an issue with accepting εἰς in Acts 2 as having forward momentum because it does not fit your personal soteriology. You cannot find any symmetry between the two. Like Robertson, the only way you can resolve this seeming discontinuity is to change the meaning of the words of the text and even go so far as to restructure the grammar of the text. This is what Robertson has attempted to do. Does this sound like an honest approach to reading scripture?
E
Were you not shown in scripture where it is, You say "AT" the teaching, is that not the same as on account of?
and can it not fit, "and be baptised in the name of jesus "at" the remission of sin"?
this is not even hit the spot of the rules of greek language ie 1st person 2nd person 3rd person, etc etc.
and can it not fit, "and be baptised in the name of jesus "at" the remission of sin"?
this is not even hit the spot of the rules of greek language ie 1st person 2nd person 3rd person, etc etc.
E
either that, or you have issue with accepting eis in acts to as being on account of something already completed because it does not fit your soteriology.
When will people learn to try to discuss the word of God with open biblical discussion, and not with arguments which can go both ways.
When will people learn to try to discuss the word of God with open biblical discussion, and not with arguments which can go both ways.
-
1
- Show all
No, what I am saying, is that the bible does not teach baptismal regeneration based upon comparing the bible with the bible.....and as a matter of fact when one looks at all scriptures in connection with the subject this is exactly what we see...
a. Saved by faith
b. Immersion is the first act of obedience, public testimony of faith and identifies one with the death burial and resurrection
c. Immersion is a work of righteousness
d. Works do not save, but are the direct result of salvation
That is what I am saying.....my view has zero to do with Robertson, Santa Claus, Billy Jo Bob Preacher and or ANY other false religion that waters down the blood.....and the bolded is par for the course with you...in one breath claiming you do not know much about Greek and in the next portraying you are a Greek scholar....
Thanks for the dishonest accusation.....bolded above
a. Saved by faith
b. Immersion is the first act of obedience, public testimony of faith and identifies one with the death burial and resurrection
c. Immersion is a work of righteousness
d. Works do not save, but are the direct result of salvation
That is what I am saying.....my view has zero to do with Robertson, Santa Claus, Billy Jo Bob Preacher and or ANY other false religion that waters down the blood.....and the bolded is par for the course with you...in one breath claiming you do not know much about Greek and in the next portraying you are a Greek scholar....
Thanks for the dishonest accusation.....bolded above
-
1
- Show all
E
well I am not sure where you get this from. I do not see any examples of this in English, The point being made was that Jonah preached to them, and it was the WORD OF GOD he preached which caused them to repent. It was not AT that time they repented. Thats taking away from the importance of the word of God.
Peter preached the word of God, they because of that word, and recieved the gift of the holy spirit. Then he said let every one of you who be baptized unto the remission of sin the word unto, in context would be the same use as the word at the preachin of Jonah,
Ninivah repented because of the word of God, they believed,
The people of acts 2 got baptised because of the word of god spoken of by peter, which gave them remission of sin,
its even spoken of in the text itself And the people who believed were baptized.
remission of sin (justification) came because of faith (belief), not baptism.
Peter preached the word of God, they because of that word, and recieved the gift of the holy spirit. Then he said let every one of you who be baptized unto the remission of sin the word unto, in context would be the same use as the word at the preachin of Jonah,
Ninivah repented because of the word of God, they believed,
The people of acts 2 got baptised because of the word of god spoken of by peter, which gave them remission of sin,
its even spoken of in the text itself And the people who believed were baptized.
remission of sin (justification) came because of faith (belief), not baptism.
-
1
- Show all
There is absolutely nothing in the grammar of Act 2 that will support this interpretation. Like Ninivah, the people of Act 2 repented when Peter preached. But, this is not the point. What we are talking about is the definition of εἰς and , why 'because of' cannot be used. Not only does "because of" not define εἰς, it cannot be used because it defies the rules that tells us when and how 'because of' can be used. “Because of” is an adverb, which means it can only modify verbs, adjectives and clauses, but not nouns and pronouns. Since ‘remission’ and ‘sin’ are both nouns and there is no verb, adjective, or clause in “for the remission of sins,” ‘because of’ cannot be used. As Angela said in post #16, "εἰς takes the accusative, and ἄφεσιν is in the accusative. Anytime in English, you have "of" it automatically is known that it is genitive, which εἰς is not! It also can NOT be "because of," because εἰς is a preposition, and "because" is a conjunction."
We are not free to abandon all the rules of grammar just because we do not like what a text says.
We are not free to abandon all the rules of grammar just because we do not like what a text says.
E
lol. Well you have been shown otherwise in quite a few threads.
You made the accusation that people were trying to interpret based on their soteriology, I will make the argument that is exactly what you are doing.
the fact is that repent and gift of the spirit are spoken to a particular group of people. in this case, all people are referred (2nd person plural)
remission of sin and be baptized are spoken to individual people not the group as a whole. (3rd person singular)
in fact, if we look at the sentence structure we see a whole different perspective (using 3rd person singular language)
every one of you (3rd person singular) is the is the number, the people being spoken to
be baptized is the verb, or command (3rd person singular)
unto or for the remission of sin is the modifying phrase. (on account of)
which leaves us to interpret the word eis.
as has already been shown, the word can be interpreted multiple ways, it is not set in stone where it HAS to be interpreted a particular way, just like the English word "for" as I should you a few posts ago.
since it can be interpret a few different ways, we must used other means to interpret
1. The rules of language
2. Biblical context (as DC tried to explain to you and you ignored)
using the rules of language and taken by itself. Both of us could possibly be correct (your argument i am ignoreing the rules of language is wrong my friend, I am not ignoring them at all.
that leaves us with option number 2 to verify our interpretation using option 1.
in no place in scripture has remission of sin ever been found to be as a direct reward, wage or result of anyone being immersed into water, that would make salvation based on works, NOT GRACE.
and by the way, I have read different greek scholars who have many many years of study, and you can take two of them with the same background and they will give you 2 different interpretations, Why? Because they too interpret based on their beliefe not according to the text.
the bible interprets the bible. and should be our first priority. because men make mistakes.
You made the accusation that people were trying to interpret based on their soteriology, I will make the argument that is exactly what you are doing.
the fact is that repent and gift of the spirit are spoken to a particular group of people. in this case, all people are referred (2nd person plural)
remission of sin and be baptized are spoken to individual people not the group as a whole. (3rd person singular)
in fact, if we look at the sentence structure we see a whole different perspective (using 3rd person singular language)
every one of you (3rd person singular) is the is the number, the people being spoken to
be baptized is the verb, or command (3rd person singular)
unto or for the remission of sin is the modifying phrase. (on account of)
which leaves us to interpret the word eis.
as has already been shown, the word can be interpreted multiple ways, it is not set in stone where it HAS to be interpreted a particular way, just like the English word "for" as I should you a few posts ago.
since it can be interpret a few different ways, we must used other means to interpret
1. The rules of language
2. Biblical context (as DC tried to explain to you and you ignored)
using the rules of language and taken by itself. Both of us could possibly be correct (your argument i am ignoreing the rules of language is wrong my friend, I am not ignoring them at all.
that leaves us with option number 2 to verify our interpretation using option 1.
in no place in scripture has remission of sin ever been found to be as a direct reward, wage or result of anyone being immersed into water, that would make salvation based on works, NOT GRACE.
and by the way, I have read different greek scholars who have many many years of study, and you can take two of them with the same background and they will give you 2 different interpretations, Why? Because they too interpret based on their beliefe not according to the text.
the bible interprets the bible. and should be our first priority. because men make mistakes.
-
1
- Show all