Acts 2:38

Acts 2:38 Which translation? KJohn36574 at aol.com KJohn36574 at aol.com Wed Dec 22 22:23:17 EST 1999   Philippians 2:6 Philipians 2:6 Williams' translation states:"Peter said to them, "You must repent - AND AS AN EXPRESSION OF IT,* let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ - that you may have you sins forgiven;..."* These five words implied from context and usage in the Early Church.-Williams' quote.However, Beck translates,"Peter answered them, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins will be forgiven,.."Williams was a Southern Baptist and Beck was Lutheran. Is it only a DOCTRINAL preference whether Acts 2:38 teaches sin remission through repentance and baptism, or just repentance? I'm assuming faith is involved in either case.Also, should the clause, "eis aphesin ton hamartion hymon" be held as parenthetical because it makes a distinction between singular and plural verbs and nouns (example: The verb for "repent" is plural and so is the pronoun "your")? Therefore the verb repent goes with the noun yours. On the other hand, the imperative "be baptized" is singular, thus sets off the rest of the sentence????????("The Bible Knowledge Commentary" P.359.Also, should we translate literally the last clause as "for the remission of sins" or should we translate idiomatically, "so that your sins will be forgiven"?Whatcha think?Ken JohnsonElk Grove, CAKJohn36574 at aol.com   Philippians 2:6Philipians 2:6 Acts 2:38 Which translation? Bill Ross wross at farmerstel.com Wed Dec 22 23:56:44 EST 1999   Beck's Translation Philipians 2:6 <Ken>>Williams' translation states:"Peter said to them, "You must repent - AND AS AN EXPRESSION OF IT,* letevery one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ - that you may haveyou sins forgiven;..."* These five words implied from context and usage in the EarlyChurch.-Williams' quote.However, Beck translates,"Peter answered them, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the nameof Jesus Christ so that your sins will be forgiven,.."Williams was a Southern Baptist and Beck was Lutheran. Is it only aDOCTRINALpreference whether Acts 2:38 teaches sin remission through repentance andbaptism, or just repentance? I'm assuming faith is involved in either case.<Bill>I hope this is appropriate for this list...Both Williams and Beck seem to be offering PARAPHRASE rather thanTRANSLATION:* The words "AND AS AN EXPRESSION OF IT" are not present (admitted in thefootnote);* "forgiveness" [AFESIN] is a noun, not a subjunctive verb* "into" [EIS] is a forward looking preposition, toward an object, not adescription of an antecedentActs2:38PETROS DE PROS AUTOUS METANOHSATE [FHSIN] KAI BAPTISQHTW EKASTOSUMWN EPI TW ONOMATI IHSOU CRISTOU EIS AFESIN TWN AMARTIWN UMWN KAI LHMYESQETHN DWREAN TOU AGIOU PNEUMATOSOnce denominational affiliation, "usage in the Early Church" or "it seems tomean to me..." dictate the text of Scripture, all is lost. I urge allconcerned about correctness of translation to just translate the words asthey are, then discuss the meaning in the Sunday School class or wherever.Rather than be an interpreter, if there is an idiom, I suggest translatingthe words as they are and then putting a footnote to explain the idiom. Itis enriching to the reader, not impoverishing.Bill Ross   Beck's TranslationPhilipians 2:6 Literal trans of Acts 2:38 KJohn36574 at aol.com KJohn36574 at aol.com Thu Dec 23 00:34:08 EST 1999   Beck's Translation, Recovery Version Beck translation trivia---stauros- single upright pole also? Jay P. Green, Sr. in his "The Literal Translation of the Bible" translates Acts 2:38 as:"And Peter said to them, Repent and be baptized, each of you ON the name of Jesus Christ TO FORGIVENESS of sins..." (cap. emphasis mine).Now would someone please tell me what that verse is saying?Ken JohnsonElk Grove, CAKJohn36574 at aol.com     Acts 2:38 Which translation? Numberup at worldnet.att.net Numberup at worldnet.att.net Thu Dec 23 02:16:06 EST 1999 Philipians 2:6 Beck translation trivia-stauros-single pole and cross. So...do you have an extra copy of Beck out there that I can buy?Solomon LandersMemra Institute for Biblical Researchhttp://www.memrain.orgKJohn36574 at aol.com wrote:> Williams' translation states:> > "Peter said to them, "You must repent - AND AS AN EXPRESSION OF IT,* let> every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ - that you may have> you sins forgiven;..."> > * These five words implied from context and usage in the Early> Church.-Williams' quote.> > However, Beck translates,> > "Peter answered them, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name> of Jesus Christ so that your sins will be forgiven,.."> > Williams was a Southern Baptist and Beck was Lutheran. Is it only a DOCTRINAL> preference whether Acts 2:38 teaches sin remission through repentance and> baptism, or just repentance? I'm assuming faith is involved in either case.> <snip>   Acts 2:38 Which translation? dixonps at juno.com dixonps at juno.com Thu Dec 23 14:19:13 EST 1999   Philippians 2:6 John 8:58 (I am, I have been, I was?) On Wed, 22 Dec 1999 22:56:44 -0600 "Bill Ross" <wross at farmerstel.com>writes:> <Ken>> >Williams' translation states:> > "Peter said to them, "You must repent - AND AS AN EXPRESSION OF IT,*let> every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ - that you > may have you sins forgiven;..."> > * These five words implied from context and usage in the Early> Church.-Williams' quote.> > However, Beck translates,> > "Peter answered them, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in > the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins will be forgiven,.."> > Williams was a Southern Baptist and Beck was Lutheran. Is it only a> DOCTRINAL preference whether Acts 2:38 teaches sin remission through > repentance and baptism, or just repentance? I'm assuming faith isinvolved in > either case.We err if we think the normal translations of Acts 2:38 suggest or implythatrepentance and baptism are necessary for the forgiveness of sins andreceptionof the Holy Spirit. Even if EIS denotes purpose, and it probably does, this does not say, norimplythe negation, if both repentance and baptism are not done, then there isnoforgiveness and reception of the Holy Spirit. All it is saying is, if Aand B, thenC and D follow. It is not saying if not (A and B), then not (C and D). The logicof such is faulty and has never been demonstrated to exist in holy writ.The negation of a proposition may or may not be true, but it is not trueby inference.The fact that the authors of scripture often cite negations with theirconditionalpropositions should indicate this to us (cf Jn 3:18, 6:53-54, 1 Jn 5:12,Mk 16:16 -note the similarity to Acts 2:38, by the way, that only hO PISTEUSAS isnegated in the second half of the verse; BAPTISQENTEIS is not).Later in Acts it is affirmed that if a man believes in Christ, then hewill be saved (Acts 16:31). This comports with 2:38 only if baptism is not viewed as arequirementfor forgiveness and reception of the Holy Spirit (equivalent to salvationfor most).The question being asked and answered in Acts 2:37ff is, what should wedo(TI POIHSWMEN), not what must I do (TI ME DEI POIEIN hINA SWQW, 16:30), asignificant difference.For more on this, read my article on negative inference fallacies at:http://users.aol.com/dixonpsPaul Dixon     Acts 2:38 -- umwn Ron Tyson rot777 at totacc.com Tue May 2 17:18:16 EDT 2000 Previous message: Fwd: Re: Mark 7:4 Next message: Mark 7:4 Perhaps someone can help me with Acts 2:38. I have read all the correspondence on this subject from 1997. However, I didn't find anything dealing with the last word of the verse--UMWN. Is there any significance in the fact that it is UMWN instead of AUTOU, which would agree with EKASTOS? If anyone can give me some insight, please do.   Previous message: Fwd: Re: Mark 7:4Next message: Mark 7:4 More information about the mailing list Acts 2:38 -- umwn Harold R. Holmyard III hholmyard at ont.com Tue May 2 19:40:23 EDT 2000   Previous message: Genesis 1.2 epefereto Next message: Hermas's Masonry Dear Ron, You write:>Perhaps someone can help me with Acts 2:38. I have read all the>correspondence on this subject from 1997. However, I didn't find anything>dealing with the last word of the verse--UMWN. Is there any significance>in the fact that it is UMWN instead of AUTOU, which would agree with>EKASTOS? If anyone can give me some insight, please do. Perhaps you do not mean the last word of the verse. I think that agrammarian would classify EKASTOS UMWN as involving a partitive genitive.We do the same thing in English: "Let each of you be baptized." "Each" isthe subject of the verb, and "each" is a part of the larger whole, "you."Does this answer the question?Yours,Harold Holmyard   Previous message: Genesis 1.2 epeferetoNext message: Hermas's Masonry More information about the mailing list Acts 2:38 -- umwn Ron Tyson rot777 at totacc.com Wed May 3 05:59:37 EDT 2000   Previous message: problem Next message: problem Harold, I'm sorry about referring to UMWN as the last word in the verse. I am speaking of UMWN which is after HAMARTIWN (the possessive genitive). My question involves the use of UMWN rather than the use of AUTOU. Do you see what I'm asking now? Sorry I was so unclear with my previous message.Ron Tyson   Previous message: problemNext message: problem More information about the mailing list Acts 2:38 -- umwn Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu Wed May 3 07:03:25 EDT 2000   Previous message: problem Next message: koin/ classical-difference,baby At 5:59 AM -0500 5/3/00, Ron Tyson wrote:>Harold,> I'm sorry about referring to UMWN as the last word in the verse. I am>speaking of UMWN which is after HAMARTIWN (the possessive genitive). My>question involves the use of UMWN rather than the use of AUTOU. Do you see>what I'm asking now? Sorry I was so unclear with my previous message.Ron, I think you meant the last word of the CLAUSE:Text: BAPTISQHTW hEKASTOS hUMWN EPI TWi ONOMATI IHSOU CRISTOU EIS AFESINTWN HAMARTIWN hUMWN ...and your original inquiry was:> Perhaps someone can help me with Acts 2:38. I have read all the>correspondence on this subject from 1997. However, I didn't find anything>dealing with the last word of the verse--UMWN. Is there any significance>in the fact that it is UMWN instead of AUTOU, which would agree with>EKASTOS? If anyone can give me some insight, please do.I don't know any name for this construction (other than "constructio adsensum" which means that the meaning required accounts for the perhapsstrange syntax), but I might call it, if I were in the business of writinga new Greek NT grammar with as many new categories for constructions aspossible ;-) , a "to-all-and-sundry" construction: the imperative is givenin the 3d sg. passive with a distributive singular subject--to which isattached a partitive genitive: "let EACH ONE--OF YOU--be baptized ... forforgiveness of YOUR sins." As you've noted, it could theoretically havebeen TWN hAMARTIWN AUTOU or, more in terms of Attic grammar, TWN hAMARTIWNhEAUTOU. But in fact the anomaly here, if there is one, is the shift to thesingular (BAPTISQHTW hEKASTOS) when a whole group is being addressed andgiven a command. Theoretically the command could have been expressed in asecond person plural imperative with an adverbial PANTES (BAPTISQHTEPANTES), but I guess the immediately governing factor is that, although wecan conceive of mass marriages and mass burials and mass awards of degrees,even if several are baptized at the same time, the baptism is understood asa personal and individual commitment, and for that reason the singularBAPTISQHTW hEKASTOS hUMWN seems the appropriate phrasing. But note thatwhen the verse resumes (after TWN hAMARTIWN hUMWN), we shift into thesecond-person plural: ... KAI LHMYESQE THN DWREAN TOU hAGIOU PNEUMATOS.Does that get at the problem bothering you, Ron?-- Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/   Previous message: problemNext message: koin/ classical-difference,baby More information about the mailing list Acts 2:38 -- umwn Mike Sangrey mike at sojurn.lns.pa.us Wed May 3 09:47:37 EDT 2000   Previous message: koin/ classical-difference Next message: Periphrastic construction "EIMI + Participle" in Acts cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu said:> I don't know any name for this construction (other than "constructio> ad sensum" which means that the meaning required accounts for the> perhaps strange syntax), but I might call it, if I were in the> business of writing a new Greek NT grammar with as many new categories> for constructions as possible ;-)And you would call this grammar "Constructio ad absurdum" perhaps?cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu said:> Theoretically the command could have been expressed in a second person> plural imperative with an adverbial PANTES (BAPTISQHTE PANTES), but I> guess the immediately governing factor is that, although we can> conceive of mass marriages and mass burials and mass awards of> degrees, even if several are baptized at the same time, the baptism is> understood as a personal and individual commitment, and for that> reason the singular BAPTISQHTW hEKASTOS hUMWN seems the appropriate> phrasing. But note that when the verse resumes (after TWN hAMARTIWN> hUMWN), we shift into the second-person plural: ... KAI LHMYESQE THN> DWREAN TOU hAGIOU PNEUMATOS. Thanks Carl. I have often thought we too often tacitly instill intothe plural pronouns the individualism of our day. It is nice to seean example where a koine writer of the 1st century believes he needs tomake the individualism explicit. This should, at least to some degree,give us pause when we see a plural 'you' in thinking it is referring to'each of you individually'. Perhaps, in those cases, it is referringto 'you as a community.' I think, FWIW, as exegetes and translators weshould each be more conscious of our own cognitive environments and howwe assume individualism, as difficult as that is.Isn't it interesting though, that it is in the practice of communitythat these cognitive environments are exposed?   Previous message: koin/ classical-differenceNext message: Periphrastic construction "EIMI + Participle" in Acts More information about the mailing list Acts 2:38 -- umwn Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu Wed May 3 09:55:14 EDT 2000   Previous message: Periphrastic construction "EIMI + Participle" in Acts Next message: Periphrastic construction "EIMI + Participle" in Acts At 9:47 AM -0400 5/3/00, Mike Sangrey wrote:> . . . I have often thought we too often tacitly instill into>the plural pronouns the individualism of our day. It is nice to see>an example where a koine writer of the 1st century believes he needs to>make the individualism explicit. This should, at least to some degree,>give us pause when we see a plural 'you' in thinking it is referring to>'each of you individually'. Perhaps, in those cases, it is referring>to 'you as a community.' I think, FWIW, as exegetes and translators we>should each be more conscious of our own cognitive environments and how>we assume individualism, as difficult as that is.> >Isn't it interesting though, that it is in the practice of community>that these cognitive environments are exposed?Precisely; in the community that Paul sometimes referred to as the SWMAIHSOU CRISTOU (it's always struck me as a curious fact that a tradition ofprivate mysticism--the very thing that Paul seems in 1 Cor to be haranguingagainst--could have emerged out of the NT literature), and also, in asomewhat (?!) derivative sense, on .-- Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu   Previous message: Periphrastic construction "EIMI + Participle" in Acts Next message: Periphrastic construction "EIMI + Participle" in Acts More information about the mailing list Acts 2:38 -- umwn Mike Sangrey mike at sojurn.lns.pa.us Wed May 3 10:28:20 EDT 2000   Previous message: Periphrastic construction "EIMI + Participle" in Acts Next message: Mark 7:4 Mike Sangrey <mike at sojurn.lns.pa.su> said:>> Isn't it interesting though, that it is in the practice of community>> that these cognitive environments are exposed?"Carl W. Conrad" cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu said:> Precisely; in the community that Paul sometimes referred to as the> SWMA IHSOU CRISTOU (it's always struck me as a curious fact that a> tradition of private mysticism--the very thing that Paul seems in 1> Cor to be haranguing against--could have emerged out of the NT> literature), and also, in a somewhat (?!) derivative sense, on> . Did it "emerge out of the NT literature"; or, did it emerge from theHellenistic culture of the time? If I Cor. is battling against it, thenit appears to me to have grown up from somewhere else. I tend to thinkthe Hebraic culture was highly communal as a community of families andthat Paul was bringing a message directed to the Greek and born from aHebrew frame of reference, a Hebrew cognitive environment, if you will.I feel this is pushing the boundaries of , but I would beinterested in any feedback one has regarding any individualistictendencies of 1st Century Hellenistic culture. IMO, it would help us inexegisis and translation to understand a little more fully the cognitiveenvironment of the GNT writers.Thanks for everyone's help.   Previous message: Periphrastic construction "EIMI + Participle" in ActsNext message: Mark 7:4 More information about the mailing list Acts 2:38 Ron Tyson rot777 at totacc.com Wed May 3 14:20:50 EDT 2000   Previous message: Discourse Analysis Next message: Acts 2:38 -- umwn Carl, I really appreciate your reply. It is the shift to the second person plural (UMWN) that concerns me. It makes me wonder if the remission of sins is to be taken with BAPTISQHTW hEKASTOS. It agrees perfectly with the second plural of METANOHSATE rather than with BAPTISQHTW hEKASTOS. Do you follow me?Thanks,Ron Tyson   Previous message: Discourse AnalysisNext message: Acts 2:38 -- umwn More information about the mailing list Acts 2:38 -- umwn Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu Wed May 3 14:23:11 EDT 2000   Previous message: Acts 2:38 Next message: Acts 2:38 At 10:28 AM -0400 5/3/00, Mike Sangrey wrote:>Mike Sangrey <mike at sojurn.lns.pa.su> said:>>> Isn't it interesting though, that it is in the practice of community>>> that these cognitive environments are exposed?> >"Carl W. Conrad" cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu said:>> Precisely; in the community that Paul sometimes referred to as the>> SWMA IHSOU CRISTOU (it's always struck me as a curious fact that a>> tradition of private mysticism--the very thing that Paul seems in 1>> Cor to be haranguing against--could have emerged out of the NT>> literature), and also, in a somewhat (?!) derivative sense, on>> .> >Did it "emerge out of the NT literature"; or, did it emerge from the>Hellenistic culture of the time? If I Cor. is battling against it, then>it appears to me to have grown up from somewhere else. I tend to think>the Hebraic culture was highly communal as a community of families and>that Paul was bringing a message directed to the Greek and born from a>Hebrew frame of reference, a Hebrew cognitive environment, if you will.> >I feel this is pushing the boundaries of , but I would be>interested in any feedback one has regarding any individualistic>tendencies of 1st Century Hellenistic culture. IMO, it would help us in>exegisis and translation to understand a little more fully the cognitive>environment of the GNT writers.(Yes, this DOES push the boundaries of , but at least I don't thinkit gets us into the sort of controversial matters entailing hermeneuticsand theological commitments.) One might like to imagine that it developedout of the Greek individualist ethos, but I suspect the situation isconsiderably more complex and that we ought to think (pace Jim West) thatHellenistic Jewish, Hellenistic Roman, and Hellenistic Greek culturesdisplayed far more elements of syncretism with one another than distinctiveand parochial elements each. One ought to guard carefully againstovergeneralizations here, but from what little bit I've read in GershomScholem and some others, that sort of private mysticism is likely to haveemerged out of the interaction of Greek and Jewish "mindsets" and perhapsnowhere more likely than in Alexandria, where, if anywhere, the Greek andJewish "mindsets" met and married each other. Where did Gnosticism (I'dcall it a sort of private personal mysticism) originate and when? I thinkit's very difficult to separate out the provenance or derivation of thestrands that enter into such things. And as for individualism and Greekculture, it has always fascinated me that Paul can use what must behighly-competitive metaphors from Greek athletics to expressnon-competitive ideas, notions such as running the good race. I don't doubtthat Paul himself wrote some of the most important texts out of which thatprivate mysticism arose, but as I've said, it seems to me that even wherehe would appear (in translation, for instance) to be addressing individualsabout personal salvation, he addresses the community and uses the pluralforms of the verb, as for instance in Phil 2:12-13 META FOBOU KAI TROMOUTHN hEAUTWN SWTHRIAN KATERGAZESQE; QEOS GAR ESTIN hO ENERGWN EN hUMIN KAITO QELEIN KAI TO ENERGEIN hUPER THS EUDOKIAS. Note here THN hEAUTWNSWTHRIAN, where hEAUTWN means hUMWN AUTWN, and note also ENERGWN EN hUMIN.I don't mean, either, to imply that personal relationship betweenindividuals were not important to him--indeed, they seem to be importanteven eschatologically, as when he speaks of seeing PROSWPON PROS PROSWPONand affirming, in 1 Cor 13, TOTE DE EPIGNWSOMAI KAQWS KAI EPEGNWSQHN, wherewe cannot simply suppose that EPIGINWSKW refers to intellectual knowing,since Paul speaks of himself as the object of that GNWSIS or EPIGNWSIS. Soyes, persons matter, and interpersonal relationships matter, WITHIN acommunity, or so it seems to me. But it would probably be more profitableto stick closer to individual NT Greek texts.-- Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu   Previous message: Acts 2:38Next message: Acts 2:38 More information about the mailing list Acts 2:38 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu Wed May 3 14:26:02 EDT 2000   Previous message: Acts 2:38 -- umwn Next message: Book review At 2:20 PM -0500 5/3/00, Ron Tyson wrote:>Carl,> I really appreciate your reply. It is the shift to the second person>plural (UMWN) that concerns me. It makes me wonder if the remission of>sins is to be taken with BAPTISQHTW hEKASTOS. It agrees perfectly with the>second plural of METANOHSATE rather than with BAPTISQHTW hEKASTOS. Do you>follow me?Yes, but don't forget that the hEKASTOS is followed by the partitive hUMWN:repent, each and all, be baptized, each and all, become part, each and all,of the new human family.-- Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu   Previous message: Acts 2:38 -- umwnNext message: Book review More information about the mailing list Acts 2:38 -- umwn Steven R. LoVullo sundoulos1 at netzero.net Wed May 3 16:01:40 EDT 2000   Previous message: Book review Next message: 3rd declension words Mike,Please do not forget that an attitude of resistance to so called "WesternIndividualism" (the modern root of all evil) is itself a prejudice that cancolor how we read the text. I've seen some of the most bizarreinterpretations of scripture arise from an effort to deny anyindividualistic thrust at all in the NT.Steve Lo Villa----- Original Message -----From: Mike Sangrey <mike at sojurn.lns.pa.us>To: Biblical Greek < at franklin.oit.unc.edu>Cc: Carl W. Conrad <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 8:47 AMSubject: Re: Acts 2:38 -- umwn> > cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu said:> > I don't know any name for this construction (other than "constructio> > ad sensum" which means that the meaning required accounts for the> > perhaps strange syntax), but I might call it, if I were in the> > business of writing a new Greek NT grammar with as many new categories> > for constructions as possible ;-)> > And you would call this grammar "Constructio ad absurdum" perhaps?> > cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu said:> > Theoretically the command could have been expressed in a second person> > plural imperative with an adverbial PANTES (BAPTISQHTE PANTES), but I> > guess the immediately governing factor is that, although we can> > conceive of mass marriages and mass burials and mass awards of> > degrees, even if several are baptized at the same time, the baptism is> > understood as a personal and individual commitment, and for that> > reason the singular BAPTISQHTW hEKASTOS hUMWN seems the appropriate> > phrasing. But note that when the verse resumes (after TWN hAMARTIWN> > hUMWN), we shift into the second-person plural: ... KAI LHMYESQE THN> > DWREAN TOU hAGIOU PNEUMATOS.> > Thanks Carl. I have often thought we too often tacitly instill into> the plural pronouns the individualism of our day. It is nice to see> an example where a koine writer of the 1st century believes he needs to> make the individualism explicit. This should, at least to some degree,> give us pause when we see a plural 'you' in thinking it is referring to> 'each of you individually'. Perhaps, in those cases, it is referring> to 'you as a community.' I think, FWIW, as exegetes and translators we> should each be more conscious of our own cognitive environments and how> we assume individualism, as difficult as that is.> > Isn't it interesting though, that it is in the practice of community> that these cognitive environments are exposed?> > > ---> home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/> You are currently subscribed to as: sundoulos1 at netzero.net> To unsubscribe, forward this message to$subst('Email.Unsub')> To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu> > > _____________________________________________NetZero - Defenders of the Free WorldClick here for FREE Internet Access and Emailhttp://www.netzero.net/download/index.html   Previous message: Book reviewNext message: 3rd declension words More information about the mailing list Acts 2:38 Ron Tyson rot777 at totacc.com Thu May 4 08:48:30 EDT 2000   Previous message: Multiply-Anteceded Dem. Pronouns Next message: Acts 2:38 Concerning the recent messages concerning Acts 2:38, I certainly appreciate what you are saying about the importance of the community, the body of Christ. I often think that because of our being conformed to the world's mold (our society), which has such an emphasis on individualism, we need to read the Word with "body glasses." However, let me come back once again to our place of departure--Acts 2:38. Because of the use of UMWN to modify hAMARTIWN, I wonder if it would not be proper to view the verse like this: "All of you repent--and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ--for the remission of your sins..." I find this to be consistent with Mark 1:4--...BAPTISMA METANOIAS EIS AFESIN hAMARTIWN. (excuse my sometimes poor transliterations; I haven't done much of that). The remission of sins is connected closely with the repentance. By the way, this b-Greek site is new to me. I appreciate it and look forward to learning from others.Ron Tyson   Previous message: Multiply-Anteceded Dem. PronounsNext message: Acts 2:38 More information about the mailing list Acts 2:38 Harold R. Holmyard III hholmyard at ont.com Thu May 4 10:54:27 EDT 2000   Previous message: Acts 2:38 Next message: koin/ classical-difference Dear Ron, You wrote about Acts 2:38:>Because of the use of UMWN to modify hAMARTIWN, I wonder if it would not>be proper to view the verse like this: "All of you repent--and let each>of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ--for the remission of your>sins..."> I find this to be consistent with Mark 1:4--...BAPTISMA METANOIAS EIS>AFESIN hAMARTIWN. (snip) The remission of sins is connected closely with>the repentance.Ron, I had this idea, too, at one time. There is no question thatrepentance is closely related to the forgiveness of sins, and the Churchdoes not teach that forgiveness of sins is dependent upon baptism. On theother hand, I believe that theologically Peter regarded repentance andbaptism as a single entity. He assumed that the crowd who repented wouldundergo baptism. So there is no need to separate the two ideas ofrepentance and baptism, thus finding a potential problem in a certainreading of the verse. We should try to read the verse in the way that a speaker would havespoken it. The divisions in the middle of Acts 2:38 seem to hinge on theprepositional phrases.METANOHSATE KAI BAPTISQHTW hEKASTOS hUMWN EPI TWi ONOMATI IHSOU CRISTOU EISAFESIN TWN hAMARTIWN hUMWN KAI LHMYESQE THN DWREAN TOU hAGIOU PNEUMATOS."Repent and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for theforgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."The phrase EPI TWi ONOMATI IHSOU CRISTOU seems to belong to the idea ofbeing baptized, as elsewhere people are baptized in the name or names ofGod. The next phrase, EIS AFESIN TWN hAMARTIWN hUMWN, seems to flow out ofthe previous one. I realize that you want to join it instead withMETANOHSATE, but do you see how many intervening words there are and howawkward such a linkage would be? It is much easier to read the twoprepositional phrases together.The natural breaks in enunciation and thought in the sentence are beforeKAI BAPTISQHTW and then again before KAI LHMYESQE. Remember, too, that theUBS text includes [FHSIN] ("he said") after METANOHSATE. If this word inbrackets belongs in the text, it further separates METANOHSATE from EISAFESIN TWN hAMARTIWN hUMWN.As Carl suggested, the singular BAPTISQHTW is a singularizing imperativeaimed at a crowd. The governing number in the sentence is the plural ofMETANOHSATE, and the governing address is the second person of METANOHSATE.Even the subject of BAPTISQHTW, hEKASTOS, is qualified by the plural,second person hUMWN. So the use of hUMWN with hAMARTIWN is not unnatural,even though preceded by a singular verb and subject.Yours,Harold Holmyard   Previous message: Acts 2:38Next message: koin/ classical-difference More information about the mailing list [] A perenthetical in Acts 2:38? Herb Torres herb_torres at hotmail.com Wed Sep 3 14:03:16 EDT 2003   [] Thank you, I became a member [] A perenthetical in Acts 2:38? In Acts 2:38 why is there no noun that goes with Baptized? Since it is in the third person does this explain why some have suggested that it is parenthetical?_________________________________________________________________Get MSN 8 and help protect your children with advanced parental controls. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/parental   [] Thank you, I became a member [] A perenthetical in Acts 2:38? [] A perenthetical in Acts 2:38? Jason Hare jason at hareplay.com Wed Sep 3 15:06:36 EDT 2003   [] A perenthetical in Acts 2:38? [] INVITATION TO TRY NEW FREEWARE VOCAB TESTING PROGRAM. Herb,Acts 2.38: PETROS DE PROS AUTOUS: METANOHSATE, [FHSIN,] KAI BAPTISQHTWhEKASTOS hUMWN EPI ONOMATI IHSOU XRISTOU EIS AFHSIN TWN hAMARTIWN hUMWN KAILHMYESQE THN DWREAN TOU hAGIOU PNEUMATOS.I'm lost as to the motivation behind this question. How could it be aparenthetical? If this is off-topic (not related to Greek grammar/syntax asfound in the NT), please, explain it to me off-list.Secondly, the *subject* of BAPTISQHTW is clearly hEKASTOS hUMWN (each one ofyou). I don't see the problem with the text, personally. IMHO, if someonetakes it "parenthetically," then surely it is for theological (and notgrammatical) reasons.Best regards,Jason----- Original Message -----From: "Herb Torres" <herb_torres at hotmail.com>To: < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 1:03 PMSubject: [] A perenthetical in Acts 2:38?> In Acts 2:38 why is there no noun that goes with Baptized? Since it is in> the third person does this explain why some have suggested that it is> parenthetical?> > _________________________________________________________________> Get MSN 8 and help protect your children with advanced parental controls.> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/parental> > ---> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>   [] A perenthetical in Acts 2:38?[] INVITATION TO TRY NEW FREEWARE VOCAB TESTING PROGRAM. [] The adjective in Acts 2:38 Herb Torres herb_torres at hotmail.com Thu Sep 4 16:57:28 EDT 2003   [] Sneak Preview of the Oxford Fall Book Sale [] The adjective in Acts 2:38 Is the adjective "hekostos" in Acts 2:38 functioning substantivally since it is not modiying any noun?Also if that is the case wouldn't that connect it with the verb "be baptized"?_________________________________________________________________Get 10MB of e-mail storage! Sign up for Hotmail Extra Storage. http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es   [] Sneak Preview of the Oxford Fall Book Sale[] The adjective in Acts 2:38 [] The adjective in Acts 2:38 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu Thu Sep 4 17:15:24 EDT 2003   [] The adjective in Acts 2:38 [] petros and petras At 3:57 PM -0500 9/4/03, Herb Torres wrote:>Is the adjective "hekostos" in Acts 2:38 functioning substantivally since it>is not modiying any noun?> >Also if that is the case wouldn't that connect it with the verb "be>baptized"?(a) Properly speaking, hEKASTOS is a pronoun rather than an adjective; itwill of course function as a noun functions (by definition);(b) hEKASTOS is indeed the subject of BAPTISQHTW.-- Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/   [] The adjective in Acts 2:38[] petros and petras [] Acts 2:38 passive imperative Herb Torres herb_torres at aristotle.net Tue Aug 17 11:20:28 EDT 2004   [] Deponent verbs - classification [] Acts 2:38 passive imperative I am having trouble conceptualizing this imperative passive verb in Acts2:38. How can a command be directed toward something being done tooneself. I am speaking of "be baptized". If it is in the imperativemood, this suggest that something is to be done yet if it is a passiveverb it suggest that something is done to the subject. It seems contraryhow can a subject both do and have done to themself the same thing? Imean how can a person follow the command to be baptized passively? Isimply do not understand an imperative passive verb. Thanks,Herb Torres   [] Deponent verbs - classification[] Acts 2:38 passive imperative [] Acts 2:38 passive imperative Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu Tue Aug 17 11:49:52 EDT 2004   [] Acts 2:38 passive imperative [] () Deponent verbs - classification At 10:20 AM -0500 8/17/04, Herb Torres wrote:>I am having trouble conceptualizing this imperative passive verb in Acts>2:38. How can a command be directed toward something being done to>oneself. I am speaking of "be baptized". If it is in the imperative>mood, this suggest that something is to be done yet if it is a passive>verb it suggest that something is done to the subject. It seems contrary>how can a subject both do and have done to themself the same thing? I>mean how can a person follow the command to be baptized passively? I>simply do not understand an imperative passive verb.The relevant words are BAPTISQHTW hEKASTOS hUMWNOne of the notions I've attempted to inject into the discussion of the QH"passive" forms is that (even for active verbs such as BAPTIZW) we shouldunderstand those -QH- aorists and futures as MIDDLE-PASSIVE rather thanjust passive. The above 3rd-person imperative could be conveyed simply as"each of you should be baptized" and you could call it truly passive, butif you understand it as "each of you should get baptized" you really dohave a verb suggesting that, although the ritual of baptism may beperformed by another, it is the will and determination of the personundergoing baptism that is at least as important as the ritual performed bythe agent. The MIDDLE force of these -QH- forms finds pretty satisfactoryexpression in the English of our period by using "get" as an auxiliary andthe English passive participle as the complement of a periphrasticconstruction.-- Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/   [] Acts 2:38 passive imperative[] () Deponent verbs - classification [] Acts 2.38 "receive"? Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at ioa.com Sun Oct 30 07:48:51 EST 2005   [] (no subject) [] GNT Sorry for omission of the subject-header in the previous sending of this message.Forwarded for: "Harold Jenkerson" <jenks at gilanet.com>Date: October 30, 2005 3:26:26 AM ESTTo: < at lists.ibiblio.org>Subject: Acts 2.38 "receive"?This is my first attempt at using this website. I am not sure ifthis is the proper approach.My question concern Acts 2.38. Why is the Greek word translated as"receive" in theEnglish text not translated as being in the middle voice? MostEnglish versions translate itas though it was an active or passive voice.Harold Jenkerson=============The text: PETROS DE PROS AUTOUS: METANOHSATE, [FHSIN] KAI BAPTISQHTWhEKASTOS hUMWN EPI TWi ONOMATI IHSOU CRISTOU EIS AFESIN hAMARTIWNhUMWN KAI LHMYESQE THN DWREAN TOU hAGIOU PNEUMATOS.The Greek word in question is LHMYESQE. It's certainly true that thisis a future middle 2nd singular in the Greek, but it's common to usewhat is standard in the target language whatever best expresses themeaning of the original; often an attempt to express explicitly thevoice-distinction of the verb in the original language results indistorted or unidiomatic expression in the target language.Some will give you the (useless) answer that LHMYESQE is translated"receive" because the verb LAMBANW "receive" is "deponent" in thefuture; that answer, of course, sidesteps or ignores the question WHYLAMBANW should have a future in the middle voice by categorizing thefuture form as somehow irregular and inexplicable.Of course the translator might have converted LHMYESQE into "you willget for yourselves the gift of the Holy Spirit." That would be aprecise equivalent of the middle-voice sense of LHMYESQE. In fact,however, many verbs that are "active" in English actually express ameaning that would be Middle in Greek. "Get" is one of the mostuseful auxiliaries for Englishing middle and passive forms in Greek,and "get" is handy in and of itself to convey the force of verbslike DECOMAI and LAMBANW in its middle forms, though you'll findboth these verbs given a standard definition "receive" in a lexicon.The basic sense of the root DEC seems to be "receive" while the basicsense of the root LAB seems to be "get in hand" or "acqure." But torevert to the key point in your question, translation very oftendoesn't endeavor to reproduce the formal construction of the originalso much as to convey accurately in idiomatic language what thetranslator understands the intended sense of the original-languageformat to be.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad2 at mac.comWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/   [] (no subject)[] GNT [] Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38 brent jobe bjobe1964 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 17 19:24:23 EDT 2008   [] hILASTHRION Rm 3:25 Noun or adj. [] Imperative? 1Pe 4:7 Hello. I am a new subscriber and only have some knowledge of Greek; I am a veterinarian by profession. I would deeply appreciate some help with the following two passages: Mark 16:16a and Acts 2:38. I will go as far as I can with them, then hope that the more knowledgable contributors can take me further. I would also be interested in any parallel Greek passages, either sacred or profane, which would further aid in understanding the New Testament Greek.Mark 16:16aο - definite article, nom sing masπιστευσας - verb, aorist part, active, nom sing masκαι - conjunction (and)βαπτισθεις - verb, aorist part, active, nom sing masσωθησεται - verb, future passive, third person, singSo my literal translation would be:"He who having believed and having been baptized will be saved."Is this a correct translation? By definition and usage, MUST the actions of the two aorists occur prior to the action of the main verb? Is it grammatically possible that either aorist could occur subsequent to the action of the main verb? Would it ever be possible to construe the Greek grammar to mean either, "He that believeth shall be saved, then is baptized?" or "He that is baptized shall be saved, then believe?" And finally, are there any writings from the period which would strengthen or weaken either position? That is as far as I can go with the verse, and appreciate, in advance, any additional insight.As to Acts 2:38, I will not follow the same pattern; I shall only ask a few English questions which can be answered by the Greek.1. Is a correct translation of μετανοησατε "Ye or you repent."? And is this second person, plural?2. Is a correct translation of βαπτισθητω "Be immersed."? 3. Is a correct translation of εκαστος υμων "Each one of you," with εκαστος being a singular masculine adjective "each" or "every" and the noun (one) being understood, implied, or supplied for clarity?4. Is υμων (tranlated you), a second person plural pronoun?5. In the original Greek, did μετανοησατε and εκαστος υμων refer to exactly the same group of people, based upon the context and normal usage of Greek at that time? Or is Peter referring to two different groups of people?6. Is βαπτισθητω third person, singular?7. Does the phrase "εις αφεσιν αμαρτιων" - (I would translate "into or unto the forgiveness of sins") apply with equal force to (I will switch to English) "Ye repent" and "let be baptized every one of you"? In other words, with consideration to the original Greek construction, does "into the forgiveness of sins" contingent or predicated upon both repentance and baptism? Or does "into the forgiveness of sins" answer to only "Ye repent"? Or does it answer to only "let be baptized every one of you."? Or both? The changes from masculine to feminine and singular to plural confuse me, and I do not know all the rules and variations. ANY help that one or more of the Greek scholars can give me - pointing out my mistakes does not bother me a bit - and I simply find great interest in similar or parallel passages from the same time period. Thank you.Best wishes,Brent Jobe, DVM   [] hILASTHRION Rm 3:25 Noun or adj.[] Imperative? 1Pe 4:7 [] Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38 kgraham0938 at comcast.net kgraham0938 at comcast.net Wed Sep 17 23:09:00 EDT 2008   [] Imperative? 1Pe 4:7 [] Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38 Mark 16:16 hO PISTEUSAS KAI BAPTISQEIS SWQHSETAI hO DE APISTHSAS KATAKRIQHSETAI I would take both aorist participles as adjectival and both are governed by the article. Meaning the one who believes and is baptized shall be saved. This usage fits under what is known as the grandville sharp rule, although not everyone believes in this rule.Acts 2:38PETROS DE PROS AUTOUS METANOHSATE FHSIN KAI BAPTISQHTW hEKASTOS hUMWN EPI TWi ONOMATI IHSOU CRISTOU EIS AFESIN TWN hAMARTIWN hUMWN KAI LHMYESQE THN DWREAN TOU hAGIOU PNEUMATOS Repent is second person plural. BAPTISQHTW is third singular meaning "be baptized". EIS AFESIN TWN hAMARTIWN hUMWN should be rendered "for the forgivness of your sins." I think he is referring to the same group. If you are wondering if a person needs to be baptized to be saved I don't think Peter is saying that here. I think he correlates the symbol (immersion) and the spirtual reality together.--Kelton Graham KGRAHAM0938 at comcast.net-------------- Original message -------------- From: brent jobe <bjobe1964 at yahoo.com> > Hello. I am a new subscriber and only have some knowledge of Greek; I am a > veterinarian by profession. I would deeply appreciate some help with the > following two passages: Mark 16:16a and Acts 2:38. I will go as far as I can > with them, then hope that the more knowledgable contributors can take me > further. I would also be interested in any parallel Greek passages, either > sacred or profane, which would further aid in understanding the New Testament > Greek. > > Mark 16:16a > > ο - definite article, nom sing mas > πιστευ1σας - verb, aorist part, active, nom sing mas > και - conjunction (and) > βαπτισθεις - verb, aorist part, active, nom sing mas > σωθησεται - verb, future passive, third person, sing > > So my literal translation would be: > > "He who having believed and having been baptized will be saved." > > Is this a correct translation? By definition and usage, MUST the actions of the > two aorists occur prior to the action of the main verb? Is it grammatically > possible that either aorist could occur subsequent to the action of the main > verb? Would it ever be possible to construe the Greek grammar to mean either, > "He that believeth shall be saved, then is baptized?" or "He that is baptized > shall be saved, then believe?" And finally, are there any writings from the > period which would strengthen or weaken either position? That is as far as I > can go with the verse, and appreciate, in advance, any additional insight. > > As to Acts 2:38, I will not follow the same pattern; I shall only ask a few > English questions which can be answered by the Greek. > 1. Is a correct translation of μετανοησατε "Ye or you repent."? And > is this second person, plural? > 2. Is a correct translation of βαπτισθητω "Be immersed."? > 3. Is a correct translation of εκαστος υ1μων "Each one of you," with > εκαστος being a singular masculine adjective "each" or "every" and the > noun (one) being understood, implied, or supplied for clarity? > 4. Is υ1μων (tranlated you), a second person plural pronoun? > 5. In the original Greek, did μετανοησατε and εκαστος > υ1μων refer to exactly the same group of people, based upon the context and > normal usage of Greek at that time? Or is Peter referring to two different > groups of people? > 6. Is βαπτισθητω third person, singular? > 7. Does the phrase "εις αφεσιν αμαρτιων" - (I would translate > "into or unto the forgiveness of sins") apply with equal force to (I will switch > to English) "Ye repent" and "let be baptized every one of you"? In other words, > with consideration to the original Greek construction, does "into the > forgiveness of sins" contingent or predicated upon both repentance and baptism? > Or does "into the forgiveness of sins" answer to only "Ye repent"? Or does it > answer to only "let be baptized every one of you."? Or both? The changes from > masculine to feminine and singular to plural confuse me, and I do not know all > the rules and variations. > > ANY help that one or more of the Greek scholars can give me - pointing out my > mistakes does not bother me a bit - and I simply find great interest in similar > or parallel passages from the same time period. Thank you. > > Best wishes, > > Brent Jobe, DVM > > > > > > > --- > home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ > mailing list > at lists.ibiblio.org > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/   [] Imperative? 1Pe 4:7[] Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38 [] Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38 George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com Thu Sep 18 03:34:52 EDT 2008   [] Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38 [] (no subject) Πέτρος δὲ πρὸς αὐτούς·μετανοήσατε, [φησίν,]καὶ βαπτισθήτω ἕκαστος ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ὑμῶν καὶ λήμψεσθε τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος.PETROS DE PROS AUTOUS, "METANOHSATE, [FHSIN,] KAI BAPTISQHTW hEKASTOS hUMWN EPI TWi ONOMATI IHSOU XRISTOU EIS AFESIN TWN hAMARTIWN hUMWN KAI LHMYESQE THN DWREAN TOU hAGIOU PNEUMATOS.While the Middle English and Old English did distinguish "ye" and "you" with you being plural, we do not do so today.  I would generally avoid archaisms even though it might lead to a small amount of imprecision if the context is not carefully considered. .I would not agree that BAPTISQHTW is a 3rd sg [ind].  This is a 3rd person imperative which in Hebrew has been called a jussive -- "let him be" or, as Carl has noted previously, this could be understood as a middle indicating having something done rather than emphasizing the passive nature of the act, e.g. "get your hair cut."  More importantly, I would not agree that BAPTW, BAPTIZW indicates immersion.  While this may have been the original significance of the word(s), it has obviously developed beyond that.  In Mk 7.4 we encounter.καὶ ἀπʼ ἀγορᾶς ἐὰν μὴ βαπτίσωνται οὐκ ἐσθίουσιν, καὶ ἄλλα πολλά ἐστιν ἃ παρέλαβον κρατεῖν, βαπτισμοὺς ποτηρίων καὶ ξεστῶν καὶ χαλκίων [καὶ κλινῶν]- KAI AP' AGORAS EAN MH BAPTISWNTAI OUK ESQIOUSIN, KAI ALLA POLLA ESTIN hA PARELABON KRATEN, BAPTISMOUS POTHRIWN KAI CESTWN KAI XALKIWN [KAI KLINWN].Note here that among the items mentioned as being "baptized" is KLINWN.  It is questionable whether this was a part of the original text; however, the argument does not depend upon it having been original.  Apparently either the original author or a later scribe though it appropriate to speak of "baptizing" couches.  The other items in the list present no problems to the concept of their being immersed though KLINWN does.  Unless we are to believe that that author or scribe conceived of having a lot of soggy couches, we must understand this to be a ritual purification (as opposed to an actual washing to remove dirt) which could be, and probably was, accomplished by sprinkling or aspergation.  In fact, another variant in this same verse would indicate the early understanding to have been such since the verb ραντισωνται > ῥαντίζω [RANTISWNTAI > hRANTIZW], which clearly indicates sprinkling, was substituted for βαπτίσωνται [BAPTISWNTAI].   Again, this is not an argument for the correctness of reading hRANTISWNTAI since it is clearly not original.  It is simply to be noted that the scribe thought it was an appropriate choice..Secondly regarding the use of βαπτίζω [BAPTIZW], Paul wrote. καὶ πάντες εἰς τὸν Μωϋσῆν ἐβαπτίσθησαν ἐν τῇ νεφέλῃ καὶ ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ KAI PANTES EIS TON MWUSHN EBAPTISQHSAN EN THi NEFELHi KAI EN THi QALASSHi.Here he is clearly referencing the Exodus tradition.  There, however, in Ex 13.17 ff it does not speak of Israel as having been encompassed in the cloud but rather of the cloud going before them.  What is involved is an identification or association of one item with another -- the people being identified with Moses.georgegfsomsel … search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.- Jan Hus_________ ----- Original Message ----From: brent jobe <bjobe1964 at yahoo.com>To: at lists.ibiblio.orgSent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 7:24:23 PMSubject: [] Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38Hello.  I am a new subscriber and only have some knowledge of Greek; I am a veterinarian by profession.  I would deeply appreciate some help with the following two passages:  Mark 16:16a and Acts 2:38.  I will go as far as I can with them, then hope that the more knowledgable contributors can take me further.  I would also be interested in any parallel Greek passages, either sacred or profane, which would further aid in understanding the New Testament Greek.Mark 16:16aο - definite article, nom sing masπιστευσας - verb, aorist part, active, nom sing masκαι - conjunction (and)βαπτισθεις - verb, aorist part, active, nom sing masσωθησεται - verb, future passive, third person, singSo my literal translation would be:"He who having believed and having been baptized will be saved."Is this a correct translation?  By definition and usage, MUST the actions of the two aorists occur prior to the action of the main verb?  Is it grammatically possible that either aorist could occur subsequent to the action of the main verb?  Would it ever be possible to construe the Greek grammar to mean either, "He that believeth shall be saved, then is baptized?" or "He that is baptized shall be saved, then believe?"  And finally, are there any writings from the period which would strengthen or weaken either position?  That is as far as I can go with the verse, and appreciate, in advance, any additional insight.As to Acts 2:38, I will not follow the same pattern; I shall only ask a few English questions which can be answered by the Greek.1.  Is a correct translation of μετανοησατε "Ye or you repent."?  And is this second person, plural?2.  Is a correct translation of βαπτισθητω "Be immersed."?  3.  Is a correct translation of εκαστος υμων "Each one of you," with εκαστος being a singular masculine adjective "each" or "every" and the noun (one) being understood, implied, or supplied for clarity?4.  Is υμων (tranlated you), a second person plural pronoun?5.  In the original Greek, did μετανοησατε and εκαστος υμων refer to exactly the same group of people, based upon the context and normal usage of Greek at that time?  Or is Peter referring to two different groups of people?6.  Is βαπτισθητω third person, singular?7.  Does the phrase "εις αφεσιν αμαρτιων" - (I would translate "into or unto the forgiveness of sins") apply with equal force to (I will switch to English) "Ye repent" and "let be baptized every one of you"?  In other words, with consideration to the original Greek construction, does "into the forgiveness of sins" contingent or predicated upon both repentance and baptism?  Or does "into the forgiveness of sins" answer to only "Ye repent"?  Or does it answer to only "let be baptized every one of you."?  Or both?  The changes from masculine to feminine and singular to plural confuse me, and I do not know all the rules and variations. ANY help that one or more of the Greek scholars can give me - pointing out my mistakes does not bother me a bit - and I simply find great interest in similar or parallel passages from the same time period.  Thank you.Best wishes,Brent Jobe, DVM      --- home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/   [] Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38[] (no subject)
Stephen Carlson wrote: As a matter of logic, "If you do X and Y, you will get Z" means that X and Y are sufficient for Z, not that they are necessary for Z. Occasionally, people imply "only if" with their conditionals (which makes it necessary rather than sufficient), but that is a matter of context and, I'm afraid in this case, theology. As a matter of language, it is not precise enough to settle without looking beyond the construction.
Imperative -> if -> only if, that is a lot of scafolding already. Can anyone recall an example of this in Greek, which is very clearly not requiring both things (only if). Perhaps something like, "Smoke 5 packs of cigarettes per day, eat as much saturated fat as you can, never do exercise, and you will die before you're 60". Or an example that does seem to require them like, "Put the key in the lock, and turn the key, and the door will open". Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — January 31st, 2014, 2:54 am
As a matter of logic, "If you do X and Y, you will get Z" means that X and Y are sufficient for Z, not that they are necessary for Z. Occasionally, people imply "only if" with their conditionals (which makes it necessary rather than sufficient), but that is a matter of context and, I'm afraid in this case, theology. As a matter of language, it is not precise enough to settle without looking beyond the construction. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — January 30th, 2014, 10:41 am
 
cwconrad wrote: Isn't "Do X and Y and then you will get Z" equivalent to "If you do X and Y, you will get Z"? I think that the reference point for the two imperatives and the future indicative is the same time as the speaker's utterance. Is there more to it than that?
Are both X and Y necessary for Z? Just to explain, many conservative evangelicals would (as I understand it) say that the gift of the Holy Spirit is granted upon repentance and faith and has nothing to do with baptism, and indeed is granted before baptism. So they read 'Repent and be baptised, and,[ because you have repented (and believed),] you will receive..'. X is a necessary and sufficient condition for Z. Y is irrelevant. Therefore, if you do X and Y, you will get Z, which is true. But can it mean this? Andrew Statistics: Posted by Andrew Chapman — January 30th, 2014, 10:19 am
 
Andrew Chapman wrote: Πέτρος δὲ πρὸς αὐτούς· Μετανοήσατε, καὶ βαπτισθήτω ἕκαστος ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ὑμῶν, καὶ λήμψεσθε τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος· How should we understand the future λήμψεσθε, combined with the aorist imperatives? I had read this as: repent and be baptised, and [after that, future to those events] you will receive.. I realise that others read this as: repent and be baptised, and [in the course of so doing] you will receive.. This is future at the time of Peter speaking, but not future to the commanded actions. Is there anything to choose between these two readings, from a grammatical/language point of view?
Isn't "Do X and Y and then you will get Z" equivalent to "If you do X and Y, you will get Z"? I think that the reference point for the two imperatives and the future indicative is the same time as the speaker's utterance. Is there more to it than that? Statistics: Posted by cwconrad — January 30th, 2014, 9:26 am
Πέτρος δὲ πρὸς αὐτούς· Μετανοήσατε, καὶ βαπτισθήτω ἕκαστος ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ὑμῶν, καὶ λήμψεσθε τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος· How should we understand the future λήμψεσθε, combined with the aorist imperatives? I had read this as: repent and be baptised, and [after that, future to those events] you will receive.. I realise that others read this as: repent and be baptised, and [in the course of so doing] you will receive.. This is future at the time of Peter speaking, but not future to the commanded actions. Is there anything to choose between these two readings, from a grammatical/language point of view? Andrew Statistics: Posted by Andrew Chapman — January 30th, 2014, 8:54 am

People who read this article also liked:

[AuthorRecommendedPosts]

127 thoughts on “Acts 2:38

    1. Troy Day, all: First of all, Acts 2:38 is not stated in classic “if, then” terms like, say, 2 Tim. 2:11-13 which speak of our trusting in Christ (continually) as a condition for salvation. (Same as Romans 11:23; Hebrews 3:6,14). In Acts 2:38 the reception of the Holy Spirit follows the believing. 1.) We should note, right off the bat (for our UPCI friends) that water baptism, while mentioned here as a following action of belief, is not NECESSARY for reception of the Spirit as ably demonstrated by Acts 9:17 and 10:44-48 (11:15-18). 2.) In apology to some AG, other Pentecostal friends it must be pointed out that the reception of “the gift of the Holy Ghost” included much more than empowerment and tongues-speaking as evidence. Reception of the Spirit here spoke about the work of the New Covenant. (Matt. 3:11; Mk. 1:8; Lk. 3:16; Jn. 1:33). This verse also tears apart Calvinist concept of the Spirit’s work in regeneration. Calvinists believe that in order to repent and turn to Christ a person (already marked as the “elect”) already has the Spirit inside. In other words, they are already said to have been regenerated because the Spirit then leads them to repent. They are ALREADY thought to have received the Spirit Who then makes them repent. Does this sound like the order presented in Acts 2:38?

    2. And finally, this passage dispels the myth that in order to have the work of the Holy Spirit in your life, with the empowerment and gifting (what is traditionally regarded as the Baptism in the Spirit) a believer has to fulfill a series of requirements moving towards holiness in order to receive. This, again, is a holdover from Nazarene and Holiness traditions which made reception of the Baptism requisite on an almost legalistic basis. But as Peter plainly says, the Holy Ghost is a GIFT, therefore not in any way earned. He comes upon SOVEREIGNLY, as He wills. This is why REVIVALISM doesn’t work because it works on the same principles: “If you do X and Y, then Z will happen. But ‘z’ is something that God gives out of love and as the gift to the redeemed (which, again, ought to be deemed holy enough because of POSITIONAL standing, not expected to legalistically “produce” their holiness). So the “steps to Spirit-baptism” and “steps to revival” model fails. Just look at Acts 4:31; 8:19; 10:44.

    3. Troy Day: Concerning the Greek, I will readily confess ignorance as far as the ability to read the language. I have some knowledge of what some of the tenses imply and, because I speak two other languages (Polish, French) know something of how such grammar works. I could check in to helps on that and even ask a good friend, Frank Luke, (an AG pastor in Iowa and knowledgeable in the Greek). I don’t claim creds where I don’t have them. 😉

    1. Troy Day, all: First of all, Acts 2:38 is not stated in classic “if, then” terms like, say, 2 Tim. 2:11-13 which speak of our trusting in Christ (continually) as a condition for salvation. (Same as Romans 11:23; Hebrews 3:6,14). In Acts 2:38 the reception of the Holy Spirit follows the believing. 1.) We should note, right off the bat (for our UPCI friends) that water baptism, while mentioned here as a following action of belief, is not NECESSARY for reception of the Spirit as ably demonstrated by Acts 9:17 and 10:44-48 (11:15-18). 2.) In apology to some AG, other Pentecostal friends it must be pointed out that the reception of “the gift of the Holy Ghost” included much more than empowerment and tongues-speaking as evidence. Reception of the Spirit here spoke about the work of the New Covenant. (Matt. 3:11; Mk. 1:8; Lk. 3:16; Jn. 1:33). This verse also tears apart Calvinist concept of the Spirit’s work in regeneration. Calvinists believe that in order to repent and turn to Christ a person (already marked as the “elect”) already has the Spirit inside. In other words, they are already said to have been regenerated because the Spirit then leads them to repent. They are ALREADY thought to have received the Spirit Who then makes them repent. Does this sound like the order presented in Acts 2:38?

    2. And finally, this passage dispels the myth that in order to have the work of the Holy Spirit in your life, with the empowerment and gifting (what is traditionally regarded as the Baptism in the Spirit) a believer has to fulfill a series of requirements moving towards holiness in order to receive. This, again, is a holdover from Nazarene and Holiness traditions which made reception of the Baptism requisite on an almost legalistic basis. But as Peter plainly says, the Holy Ghost is a GIFT, therefore not in any way earned. He comes upon SOVEREIGNLY, as He wills. This is why REVIVALISM doesn’t work because it works on the same principles: “If you do X and Y, then Z will happen. But ‘z’ is something that God gives out of love and as the gift to the redeemed (which, again, ought to be deemed holy enough because of POSITIONAL standing, not expected to legalistically “produce” their holiness). So the “steps to Spirit-baptism” and “steps to revival” model fails. Just look at Acts 4:31; 8:19; 10:44.

    3. Troy Day: Concerning the Greek, I will readily confess ignorance as far as the ability to read the language. I have some knowledge of what some of the tenses imply and, because I speak two other languages (Polish, French) know something of how such grammar works. I could check in to helps on that and even ask a good friend, Frank Luke, (an AG pastor in Iowa and knowledgeable in the Greek). I don’t claim creds where I don’t have them. 😉

  1. Troy Day says:

    David Chambers Grover Katzmarek Sr Acts 2:38 teaches sin remission through repentance and baptism, or just repentance? I’m assuming faith is involved in either case.

    Should then the clause, “eis aphesin ton hamartion hymon” be held as parenthetical because it makes a distinction between singular and plural verbs and nouns (example:

    The verb for “repent” is plural and so is the pronoun “your”)?
    Therefore the verb repent goes with the noun yours.

    On the other hand, the imperative “be baptized” is singular, thus sets off the rest of the sentence?

  2. Troy Day says:

    Acts 2:38. Because of the use of UMWN to modify hAMARTIWN, I wonder if it would not be proper to view the verse like this: “All of you repent–and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ–for the remission of your sins…” I find this to be consistent with Mark 1:4–…BAPTISMA METANOIAS EIS AFESIN hAMARTIWN. (excuse my sometimes poor transliterations; I haven’t done much of that). The remission of sins is connected closely with the repentance.

  3. Troy Day says:

    How can a command be directed toward something being done tooneself. I am speaking of “be baptized”. If it is in the imperativemood, this suggest that something is to be done yet if it is a passiveverb it suggest that something is done to the subject. It seems contraryhow can a subject both do and have done to themself the same thing? Imean how can a person follow the command to be baptized passively? Isimply do not understand an imperative passive verb.

  4. Troy Day says:

    The relevant words are BAPTISQHTW hEKASTOS hUMWNOne of the notions I’ve attempted to inject into the discussion of the QH”passive” forms is that (even for active verbs such as BAPTIZW) we shouldunderstand those -QH- aorists and futures as MIDDLE-PASSIVE rather thanjust passive. The above 3rd-person imperative could be conveyed simply as”each of you should be baptized” and you could call it truly passive, butif you understand it as “each of you should get baptized” you really dohave a verb suggesting that, although the ritual of baptism may beperformed by another, it is the will and determination of the personundergoing baptism that is at least as important as the ritual performed bythe agent. The MIDDLE force of these -QH- forms finds pretty satisfactoryexpression in the English of our period by using “get” as an auxiliary andthe English passive participle as the complement of a periphrasticconstruction.

  5. Troy Day says:

    David Chambers Grover Katzmarek Sr Acts 2:38 teaches sin remission through repentance and baptism, or just repentance? I’m assuming faith is involved in either case.

    Should then the clause, “eis aphesin ton hamartion hymon” be held as parenthetical because it makes a distinction between singular and plural verbs and nouns (example:

    The verb for “repent” is plural and so is the pronoun “your”)?
    Therefore the verb repent goes with the noun yours.

    On the other hand, the imperative “be baptized” is singular, thus sets off the rest of the sentence?

  6. Troy Day says:

    Acts 2:38. Because of the use of UMWN to modify hAMARTIWN, I wonder if it would not be proper to view the verse like this: “All of you repent–and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ–for the remission of your sins…” I find this to be consistent with Mark 1:4–…BAPTISMA METANOIAS EIS AFESIN hAMARTIWN. (excuse my sometimes poor transliterations; I haven’t done much of that). The remission of sins is connected closely with the repentance.

  7. Troy Day says:

    How can a command be directed toward something being done tooneself. I am speaking of “be baptized”. If it is in the imperativemood, this suggest that something is to be done yet if it is a passiveverb it suggest that something is done to the subject. It seems contraryhow can a subject both do and have done to themself the same thing? Imean how can a person follow the command to be baptized passively? Isimply do not understand an imperative passive verb.

  8. Troy Day says:

    The relevant words are BAPTISQHTW hEKASTOS hUMWNOne of the notions I’ve attempted to inject into the discussion of the QH”passive” forms is that (even for active verbs such as BAPTIZW) we shouldunderstand those -QH- aorists and futures as MIDDLE-PASSIVE rather thanjust passive. The above 3rd-person imperative could be conveyed simply as”each of you should be baptized” and you could call it truly passive, butif you understand it as “each of you should get baptized” you really dohave a verb suggesting that, although the ritual of baptism may beperformed by another, it is the will and determination of the personundergoing baptism that is at least as important as the ritual performed bythe agent. The MIDDLE force of these -QH- forms finds pretty satisfactoryexpression in the English of our period by using “get” as an auxiliary andthe English passive participle as the complement of a periphrasticconstruction.

  9. So the reading of scripture and obeying it is relegated to a particular sect?

    When one uses greek to simply deconstruct, obfuscate to plant doubt in scripture is a sad state of affairs.

    There are many scriptures that connect baptism to the forgiveness of Sins and specifically being critical. Specifically in Jesus Name.

    If everyone recorded in Acts were Baptized following the Acts 2:38 pattern, why not just believe and obey the pattern rather than reject it because it is contrary to the tradition of Catholicism.

    simple answer,

    Is Acts 2:38 true? Yes. Yes. Yes. Believe it, Obey it, Experience it.

    If you don’t believe it to be true, that is the problem. To further disseminate that to hungry souls, This does not make great company.

  10. So the reading of scripture and obeying it is relegated to a particular sect?

    When one uses greek to simply deconstruct, obfuscate to plant doubt in scripture is a sad state of affairs.

    There are many scriptures that connect baptism to the forgiveness of Sins and specifically being critical. Specifically in Jesus Name.

    If everyone recorded in Acts were Baptized following the Acts 2:38 pattern, why not just believe and obey the pattern rather than reject it because it is contrary to the tradition of Catholicism.

    simple answer,

    Is Acts 2:38 true? Yes. Yes. Yes. Believe it, Obey it, Experience it.

    If you don’t believe it to be true, that is the problem. To further disseminate that to hungry souls, This does not make great company.

  11. “38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.”

    Conviction gripped their heart concerning Jesus being both Jehovah and Messiah, they asked, “What shall we do?”

    Peter answered their question.

    Repent. – What does that mean?

    Every one of you be immersed in water in the name of Jesus Christ

    There is a promise and benefit to doing those two things, forgiveness of sin.

    And you will receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost.

    This promise is to you, your kids and beyond.

    If you will repent, be baptized in Jesus Name,

    You will receive the Gift of the HOly Ghost and the forgiveness of your sins.

  12. Troy Day says:

    Scott Phillips I have to agree with Paul Hughes on this one Baptismal regeneration is distinctly non-Pentecostal, We are saved by faith alone.

    We are not saved by taking sacraments, either. The Greek of the verse proves that “Repent and be baptized” actually implies that the person who repents will go on and demonstrate that repentance by going through the demonstration of cleansing which is water baptism.

  13. Troy Day says:

    That’s pelagianism bro Scott ref Joseph D. Absher This may be one thing where classic Pentecostals and oneness folk differ Joseph Kidwell Shall we look at the actual Greek of the verse?

  14. Saved by Faith Alone … the only scripture you will find those two words together, Faith alone, speaks against this heresy.

    OF course, it’s easier to keep tradition than to break with it.

  15. Batting Labels around rather than dealing with the plainly stated truth is the nature of Tradition that seeks to dismiss the Word of God.

    Nothing to see here, move right along.

    So the answer to your question,

    Acts 2:38 don’t mean what it says because of a doctrine born out of Martin Luther.

    The Bible does say we are saved by faith…. it does not say ALONE.

  16. It’s safe to say no one person represents a denomination or even a doctrine. But an idea might be a different story. The idea that faith in Jesus Christ is the only thing that can save is is a well trodden path albeit narrow. Obedience to God and good works can only come from a pure heart. That is definitely post surrender to Christ!

  17. Surrender to Christ ! Daily. Regularly. In Faith.

    Proof of that surrender? Obedience to the Word of God.

    Proof of not surrendered? Disobedience to the Word of God.

    Daily, Regularly in doubt and disobedience.

    Faith EVERYTHING is how we are saved.

    In everything in Faith.

    The sentiment communicated in Faith Alone is not a Biblical principle.

    1. You did well what hindered you? Why make such wonderful statements and throw in, “faith alone is not biblical.” Was Paul saved on the road to Damascus? Yes. Did the house of Cornelius get wonderfully saved and filled with the Holy Spirit. Yes.
      I haven’t been a part of this conversation because I don’t know enough about it. For example the modulist and oneness views could be different. I have seen some gross abuses of scripture. But that’s true of any denomination. For example a belief that people are not saved unless they speak in tongues. I have some Christian friends that love the Lord Jesus Christ and they are “Apostolic” so while I’m trying read these comments and consider these things I’m not willing to dismiss my brethren so easily.
      I think it is up the the poster to prove the cult accusation.

  18. You may believe in Faith alone, but your faith is not a Biblically supported belief.

    Jesus did not teach faith alone. Read his parables. Study his teaching.

    Peter and Paul as all Epistles teach a neccessity for many things in addition to faith.

    To dismiss this is to dismiss how much of scripture?

    In favor of a mantra from Luther?

    Really sad that “Pentecostals” claim such things.

  19. You did well what hindered you? Why make such wonderful statements and throw in, “faith alone is not biblical.” Was Paul saved on the road to Damascus? Yes. Did the house of Cornelius get wonderfully saved and filled with the Holy Spirit. Yes.
    I haven’t been a part of this conversation because I don’t know enough about it. For example the modulist and oneness views could be different. I have seen some gross abuses of scripture. But that’s true of any denomination. For example a belief that people are not saved unless they speak in tongues. I have some Christian friends that love the Lord Jesus Christ and they are “Apostolic” so while I’m trying read these comments and consider these things I’m not willing to dismiss my brethren so easily.

  20. “38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.”

    Conviction gripped their heart concerning Jesus being both Jehovah and Messiah, they asked, “What shall we do?”

    Peter answered their question.

    Repent. – What does that mean?

    Every one of you be immersed in water in the name of Jesus Christ

    There is a promise and benefit to doing those two things, forgiveness of sin.

    And you will receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost.

    This promise is to you, your kids and beyond.

    If you will repent, be baptized in Jesus Name,

    You will receive the Gift of the HOly Ghost and the forgiveness of your sins.

  21. Troy Day says:

    Scott Phillips I have to agree with Paul Hughes on this one Baptismal regeneration is distinctly non-Pentecostal, We are saved by faith alone.

    We are not saved by taking sacraments, either. The Greek of the verse proves that “Repent and be baptized” actually implies that the person who repents will go on and demonstrate that repentance by going through the demonstration of cleansing which is water baptism.

  22. Troy Day says:

    That’s pelagianism bro Scott ref Joseph D. Absher This may be one thing where classic Pentecostals and oneness folk differ Joseph Kidwell Shall we look at the actual Greek of the verse?

  23. Saved by Faith Alone … the only scripture you will find those two words together, Faith alone, speaks against this heresy.

    OF course, it’s easier to keep tradition than to break with it.

  24. Batting Labels around rather than dealing with the plainly stated truth is the nature of Tradition that seeks to dismiss the Word of God.

    Nothing to see here, move right along.

    So the answer to your question,

    Acts 2:38 don’t mean what it says because of a doctrine born out of Martin Luther.

    The Bible does say we are saved by faith…. it does not say ALONE.

  25. It’s safe to say no one person represents a denomination or even a doctrine. But an idea might be a different story. The idea that faith in Jesus Christ is the only thing that can save is is a well trodden path albeit narrow. Obedience to God and good works can only come from a pure heart. That is definitely post surrender to Christ!

  26. Surrender to Christ ! Daily. Regularly. In Faith.

    Proof of that surrender? Obedience to the Word of God.

    Proof of not surrendered? Disobedience to the Word of God.

    Daily, Regularly in doubt and disobedience.

    Faith EVERYTHING is how we are saved.

    In everything in Faith.

    The sentiment communicated in Faith Alone is not a Biblical principle.

    1. You did well what hindered you? Why make such wonderful statements and throw in, “faith alone is not biblical.” Was Paul saved on the road to Damascus? Yes. Did the house of Cornelius get wonderfully saved and filled with the Holy Spirit. Yes.
      I haven’t been a part of this conversation because I don’t know enough about it. For example the modulist and oneness views could be different. I have seen some gross abuses of scripture. But that’s true of any denomination. For example a belief that people are not saved unless they speak in tongues. I have some Christian friends that love the Lord Jesus Christ and they are “Apostolic” so while I’m trying read these comments and consider these things I’m not willing to dismiss my brethren so easily.
      I think it is up the the poster to prove the cult accusation.

  27. You may believe in Faith alone, but your faith is not a Biblically supported belief.

    Jesus did not teach faith alone. Read his parables. Study his teaching.

    Peter and Paul as all Epistles teach a neccessity for many things in addition to faith.

    To dismiss this is to dismiss how much of scripture?

    In favor of a mantra from Luther?

    Really sad that “Pentecostals” claim such things.

  28. You did well what hindered you? Why make such wonderful statements and throw in, “faith alone is not biblical.” Was Paul saved on the road to Damascus? Yes. Did the house of Cornelius get wonderfully saved and filled with the Holy Spirit. Yes.
    I haven’t been a part of this conversation because I don’t know enough about it. For example the modulist and oneness views could be different. I have seen some gross abuses of scripture. But that’s true of any denomination. For example a belief that people are not saved unless they speak in tongues. I have some Christian friends that love the Lord Jesus Christ and they are “Apostolic” so while I’m trying read these comments and consider these things I’m not willing to dismiss my brethren so easily.

  29. Paul Hughes says:

    These believed and received the Holy Spirit with speaking in tongues — BEFORE they were baptized! No one who is not “saved” receives Spirit Baptism.

    Acts 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. 44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. 45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, 47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.

  30. Paul Hughes says:

    These believed and received the Holy Spirit with speaking in tongues — BEFORE they were baptized! No one who is not “saved” receives Spirit Baptism.

    Acts 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. 44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. 45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, 47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.

  31. Troy Day, I believe that we are saved when we repent of our sins. According to Rom. 5:1, we are justified by faith. I baptize in Jesus name according to Acts 2:38, but water baptism is an outward testimony of what God has already done on the inside of the believer and is not salvific. The infilling of the Holy Ghost is for those who are already children of God according to Lk. 11:13. It is a mistake and doctrinal error to confuse regeneration which happens when one repents, and the infilling of the Holy Ghost. The infilling of the Holy Ghost is subsequent to the new birth.. With the exception of the baptism formula, I believe that I hold you’re position.

  32. Troy Day says:

    Joseph Kidwell I am only interested in the actual Greek of the Bible As far as I can read it it is clear: repent to be saved and be baptized in water

  33. Troy Day, I believe that we are saved when we repent of our sins. According to Rom. 5:1, we are justified by faith. I baptize in Jesus name according to Acts 2:38, but water baptism is an outward testimony of what God has already done on the inside of the believer and is not salvific. The infilling of the Holy Ghost is for those who are already children of God according to Lk. 11:13. It is a mistake and doctrinal error to confuse regeneration which happens when one repents, and the infilling of the Holy Ghost. The infilling of the Holy Ghost is subsequent to the new birth.. With the exception of the baptism formula, I believe that I hold you’re position.

  34. Troy Day says:

    Joseph Kidwell I am only interested in the actual Greek of the Bible As far as I can read it it is clear: repent to be saved and be baptized in water

  35. Troy Day says:

    Alden Lopez Salguero Jared Cheshire I have to agree with Link Hudson on this one I JUST dont see the baptism as a salvific requirement It just doesnt read that way in the Greek

    1. Troy Day says:

      Please do because if you dont agree with the greek of the Bible it may be impossible to determine true interpretation Link Hudson already tried with no success

    2. Troy Day I apologize I have taken so long. It has been a very tiring but rewarding day. I am off to bed for about 10 hours of coma, so that I can function tomorrow evening. I haven’t had time to go though all the post or the link, but here is a likely translation for 1Pete 1:21 (I was off a verse in my exhausted state) It is, I feel, a expounding by Peter on why it is important to baptize.

    3. Troy Day says:

      Jared Cheshire which version is v21 quoted from? Link Hudson just read the quote to see why you need the Greek

      Your statement – I am not gonna sit and read 🙂
      is the start of ignorance
      I am pretty sure you sat and read everything about economix to earn your degree So you are gonna have to sit and read the Greek if you want to understand the Bible – that simple

    4. Link Hudson says:

      Troy Day I have got to support a family, too. I cannot read every tag and probably read too many. One article about which variant on tongues you posted did not seem to have much to do with the overall meaning of the passage– but you had to wade through a lot to see that.

      You learned some Greek. That’s great. There is plenty saints can learn from reading translations, and reading the narrative, prophecies with the help of the Holy Spirit. You are in a denomination with roots in another denomination where a lot of the preachers do not know Greek or got just enough to make it sound like they knew something. If you tell preachers they cannot know the Bible unless they know Greek in your own denomination, you might discourage some of them. I also think you should examine your heart as to whether these types of comments are meant to exalt yourself in others peoples eyes.

      Also if these posts are designed to get pisters to learn Greek, it isvprobably not the best method peagalogically.

    5. Troy Day, I use a multitude. Byzantine, Alexandria, textus receptis, etc. When their seems to be a conflict, I don’t just go with what is convienent. I dig! Sometimes the conflict is only the tense, but that matters as much as the words. The above wasn’t a quote, but an interpretation of what the texts seemed most likey to be saying. Too many are concerned with a literal translation, but anyone who has interpreted for a speaker knows that with idiom and colloquialism, that a direct translation leaves understanding Lost in Translation.

  36. Link Hudson says:

    If someone wants to get saved, I encourage them to repent, believe, and be baptized. I do not tell people they are damned if they are not baptized. If I preach an evangelistic sermon, I encourage people to be baptized. If I were to set up some kind of crusade myself in the future… if the Lord took me down that path.. I would strongly consider having some sort of facilities there for baptism in water.

    I believe we should follow apostolic example, especially when there is so much doctrinal teaching on the matter in the Bible as there is with water baptism.

Comments are closed.