-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Not to bring up the Catholic thing again, but...
- Thread starter Emily25069
- Start date
- Status
What? Acts 2:38 does NOT say..."Repent FOR the remission of sins"...It's says: "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..."
The STEPS to be saved are separated by the word AND...thus there are Three (3) steps:
Repent...AND
BE Baptized FOR the remission of sins...AND
Receive the gift of the Holy Spirit
You'd have a leg to stand on IF the text read: "Repent for the remission of sins and be baptized all of you and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." But the text doesn't read in such a way...
In XC
-
Last edited by a moderator:
So you want to use Webster's dictionary for your authority for faith and practice instead of the Bible. I have already been through this before.
We are speaking of Biblical doctrine and therefore must stick to Biblical definitions of prayer, not insert modern definitions when speaking of prayer. There is not lesser form of communication to Mary.
1. Mary is dead. The resurrection has not yet occurred.
2. All prayer TO Mary is worship. Worship of another is idolatry.
3. Communication to the dead is necromancy--strongly condemned in the Bible.
4. There are many Scriptures which plainly tell us that there is one mediator between God and man; the man Christ Jesus--He is the only intercessor. Mary cannot intercede for anyone.
--"If any man sin we have an advocate with Jesus Christ the righteous and he is the propitiation for our sins.
Christ is our mediator, He is our advocate. There is no other go-between.
5. For Catholics everywhere to pray to Mary is to confer on Mary the attributes of omniscience and omnipresence, attributes that belong only to God. Therefore the RCC has made Mary a god. That is not only idolatry it is polytheism--also strongly condemned in the Bible.
6 "Our God is jealous God; He will not give His glory to another." But the Catholics ignore this and give His glory to Mary. This also is not only sin but blasphemous.
7. Christ alone is to be adored, worshiped and praised. All other worship is idolatry.
Is this enough to show to you that prayer and worship of Mary is wrong?
"Jump for joy" is a euphemism and does not convey the meaning of "for". A proper example would be: "I work for money." This means I work so I can get money. IT DOES NOT MEAN "I work because I have money."
John 6:28-29 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
--Jesus makes a play on words here. The meaning is that there is nothing that you can do but believe. If faith could be considered a work (which it isn't) then that is all that you can do--"believe on Him whom he hath sent." Then you will have salvation. There are no works involved. This is what Jesus himself declared.
No enough has not been said since you have a complete misunderstanding of this verse. Let's look at it.
Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
--The Greek word "for" is "eis" which has a variety of meanings. It is one of the most common Greek prepositions used in the Greek language. Let's look at another passage which has a parallel construction:
Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance...
--Here the word "unto" is the same Greek word "eis".
But what does it mean? Does it mean that the water will produce repentance? No. John required repentance before he would baptize them. In fact he said plainly:
Matthew 3:8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:
--He wanted the fruit of repentance, and then he would baptize them.
First repentance, and then baptism. That was the order. Thus in Matthew 3:11 one could translate it: "I indeed baptize you with water because of repentance."
The same is true in Acts 2:38
Acts 2:38 ...be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins,
--be baptized...because your sins have been remitted or forgiven. The word "eis" having the same meaning, and using the same construction as Mat.3:11 means on account of, or because of, or on the basis of. Because their sins were remitted they could be baptized. That is the meaning of the verse.
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
No, I want to use Webster dictionary for defining english words that I use in the context of what I am speaking about. It has nothing to do with the bible. If I want to discuss faith and morals I will use the bible.
No, we are not speaking of biblcial doctrine. Doctrine is defined as
Under this definition Scriptures are separate from doctrine. Principles are presented in scripture for belief and they are a teaching. Dogma is defined by a "religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group. So the proper way to look at it is this way. The Catholic Church has presented a dogma. 1) what is it? 2) is it in accordance with scriptures.
You fail the first part. You fail to define what it is. You already equate it to a biblical principle before you properly define it. You instead impose your belief as to what it is then you jump to number two. Its a faulted premise and thus whether your conclusion is accurate or not its inconsistent with the subject or irrelevant. Until your on the same page as to what the doctrine is you can not compare it to scripture. So first define it properly.
The Dogma of the Catholic Church is that we should pray to Mary. To define it properly we must ask. What is the context of "pray to Mary" Prayer is a vehicle of communication to God, or to a person (dead or alive). In which context does the Catholic Dogma support. A Catholic answer is that the vehicle of communication (prayer) is as one communciates to a person. Therefore its not defined as one given to God. OK. From this perspective you can move to the next question regarding how does it realate to scripture.
1) does scripture prevent us from communicating to other people?
2) does scripture say we must communicate to people we do not see?
3) what does scripture say about it? etc...
Your next statement
[QUOTE1. Mary is dead. The resurrection has not yet occurred][/QUOTE]
Your contention is that Mary is dead. The obvious catholic reply is that; No, Mary is not dead.
What is your evidence that Mary is dead. If scripture is your sole authority you will be frustrated because there is no indication in scripture that Mary has died. You can pull up verses like "it is appointed once for a man to die" but you must be embarrassed by Enoch and Elijah since neither has died and thus scripture lies. Making a future referrence is of no use because it hasn't happened yet and you still make the scriptures a liar.
You may say that it is logical that Mary is dead because it has been 2,000 years since and men generally don't live that long. Yet you have no real evidence to support that Mary did indeed die save logic that is faulted if you believe Enoch and Elijah are both still alive.
This is an all inclusive statement that ignores the first step of definition. Prayer can be to God as worship or it can be to a person as communication. Already I've shown you the hebrew word that is like its english counterpart and taken both ways. Catholic reply to you is that no prayer to Mary is a supplication not worship. I may make a supplication to you and not worship you. So you fail again at the definition of what the dogma you are arguing against.
This is true but you have to prove that Mary is indeed dead which you have not sufficiently proved, to show the communicators are communicating to the dead. Scriptures are silent on whether Mary is dead or not.
Failing to prove that Mary is indeed dead you also make this statement which again you must then be embarrassed by this passage
It is obvious that James is indicating that we pray for each other and that we intercede for each other. If there is only one intercessor between God and Man; the man Jesus Christ then James must be teaching a falsehood and it should not be in scriptures. I should not pray for you. I cannot intercede for you because only Jesus Christ can do that. Therefore you've proven agains scriptures to lie. Unless again you are mistaken by context. Which seems more reasonable that I can intercede and pray for you because James says for me to do so that you might be healed and forgiven. The Catholic will say it is in this same capasity that they request Mary to pray for them. You still haven't proven she died.
Again you've instituted what it is you think they are saying and answering it making a leap from 1) to 2). Instead the Catholic will say Mary does not have these attributes. It is God who brings to her knowledge those for her to pray much like I may feel a need in the middle of the night to pray for your safety in which case I am not hearing you nor am I aware of your circumstance I trust that the lord has given me awareness of your need. It is in this sence Catholics say Mary prays.
Again you skip 1) and disregard the actual dogma that only divine worship belongs to God and to mary goes the communication.
The question is not one of worship. It is wrong to worship Mary for worship belongs to God. The question is one of communication. Is it wrong to communicate to Mary.
My personal opinion is yes. However, You have not suffeciently proved your point.
Once again, I will offer a difference between prayer to God and "pray" to a person here. In both of these cases, the person to whom we are speaking can hear us. God because of His omnipotence and omniscience and a person who is standing next to us or on the phone or on the computer because they have ears and eyes to hear and see us.
However, those who are in heaven do not have ears or eyes here on earth. They then must be omnipotent and omniscient in order to hear prayers - and both of those qualities belong to God only.
So how is "praying" to a person in heaven other than God anything but ascribing to them divine attributes - thus decaring them a god?
However, those who are in heaven do not have ears or eyes here on earth. They then must be omnipotent and omniscient in order to hear prayers - and both of those qualities belong to God only.
So how is "praying" to a person in heaven other than God anything but ascribing to them divine attributes - thus decaring them a god?
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
You make the same error as DHK. You have not provided sufficient evidence.
Jesus and all the writers of the Bible used Hebrew and Greek, not English. Therefore we must do the same. Find out what the words meant in the original languages and define them accordingly. We do not define words according to the RCC or even according to Webster. The Bible is our final authority in all matters pertaining to faith and doctrine. I don't know how strongly I must stress that. Prayer is doctrine. The doctrine of prayer, as defined in the Bible, is communication to God alone. Prayer is never to a person, but always to God. I can offer you many definitions from Bible Dictionaries, here is the first one that I had available:
This was taken from the American Tract Society Dictionary. Similar Bible Dictionaries say the same thing. It is always between the believe and God. It is never between a person and any other but God. Theological terms have theological definitions, and you don't get them from Webster!!
Yes we are speaking of doctrine. The word doctrine simply means teaching. Look here, at the Scriptures.
Acts 2:42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. (KJV)
Acts 2:42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread and the prayers. (ASV)
--The words are synonymous when used in Scripture. Doctrine is teaching.
4. Archaic Something taught; a teaching.
I don't see that. The Bible had archaic language, remember; the KJV is 400 years old,
Show me that from the Bible. It is my authority.
Sorry, the RCC is not my authority. Prayer is a doctrine. According to the Bible what is prayer. I start with my authority. Not the other way around.
I have defined it. I am sorry if I only assumed you would know what prayer was. But now I have provided a definition for you.
Now you have a proper definition.
And they are dead wrong. Prayer is between man and God alone. Anything else is idolatry.
No it isn't. It is to God alone. The definition of prayer excludes any person. One cannot pray to a person. That falls outside the definition of prayer and into the definition of idolatry. That is why the Bible is so important to use as our authority.
And that is wrong. That is idolatry. Prayer to a person is idolatry.
As prayer, yes. It becomes idolatry. The "Hail Mary" is a prayer and it is idolatrous. You wouldn't address me in such a manner would you? It is worshipful. It is idolatry.
I can't see you. So that depends. I know that you are alive because of technology.
The Scripture is very clear about communicating to the "dead," whether you consider them saved or unsaved. She is dead because the resurrection has not yet taken place. I did mention that already.
The resurrection has not yet taken place. The one that is alive is Jesus Christ.
Do you know this song?
I serve a risen saviour, He's in the world today.
I know that He is living, no matter what you say.
I see his hand of mercy; I hear his voice of cheer.
I know that He is living no matter what you say
He lives! He lives! Christ Jesus lives today.
He lives! He lives! Salvation to impart.
You ask me why I know he lives.
He lives within my heart!!
It is Christ that lives; not Mary.
BTW, a converted Jew wrote that hymn in answer to a question "Who would ever serve a dead Savior?"
Walk through a cemetary. Is there any indication that those in the graves are alive? They are dead. Mary is no different than any one else. The resurrection has not yet taken place. The rapture has not yet taken place. Concerning that event, Paul said:
"The dead in Christ shall rise first." They haven't risen yet. And that includes Mary.
Are you limiting God in what He can do? When Scripture tells us that He took Enoch, then He took Enoch. But He did not say that concerning Mary.
I don't make God a liar. You argue out of silence which is no argument at all.
I have the Bible to tell me that Enoch and Elijah are alive. I don't have the Bible to tell me that Mary is alive. You are depending on RCC tradition. Why would you believe that? it is heresy.
Prayer is only to God and God alone. To any other thing or person it is idolatry. See definition above.
If to a person it is idolatry.
That supplication TO Mary is what makes it idolatry.
If it is directly TO me, it may be idolatry. Generally people ask of me.
The essence of our faith is the resurrection. The ONLY one to have risen from the dead is Jesus Christ. No other person is alive. All others are dead and in the grave--Mary included. She is dead.
I will pray FOR you; but never TO you. There is a big difference. Praying TO you is idolatry. Catholics pray TO Mary which is idolatry.
Note the pronouns used. In every instance you have used the pronoun for and not once the pronoun TO. You may not pray TO me, otherwise it is idolatry. But I welcome your prayers FOR me.
And that is idolatry because they pray TO Mary.
It is the only way that she could possibly hear and know what all Catholics pray the world over.
I have never heard that. I was never taught that as a Catholic. I don't believe that the Catechism teaches that either. You will have to demonstrate that through the Catechism. The RCC doesn't teach that the Lord is a mediator for Mary but that Mary is a mediator and redemptrix for the Lord. I know you have this wrong.
I am not skipping anything. Have you not read some of the prayers devoted to Mary alone?
The communication that is given TO Mary is that of worship, prayer, praise and adoration which is due only to God. That is idolatry.
I think I have.
No, faith is never a work per Scripture.
Marcia
Active Member
We need to start by looking back to the original language and the meaning of the Greek word eis. This is a common Greek word (it is used 1774 times in the New Testament) that is translated many different ways. Like the English word “for” it can have several different meanings. So, again, we see at least two or three possible meanings of the passage, one that would seem to support that baptism is required for salvation and others that would not. While both the meanings of the Greek word eis are seen in different passages of Scripture, such noted Greek scholars as A.T. Robertson and J.R. Mantey have maintained that the Greek preposition eis in Acts 2:38 should be translated “because of” or “in view of,” and not “in order to,” or “for the purpose of.”
One example of how this preposition is used in other Scriptures is seen in Matthew 12:41 where the word eis communicates the “result” of an action. In this case it is said that the people of Nineveh “repented at the preaching of Jonah” (the word translated “at” is the same Greek word eis). Clearly, the meaning of this passage is that they repented “because of’” or “as the result of” Jonah’s preaching. In the same way, it would be possible that Acts 2:38 is indeed communicating the fact that they were to be baptized “as the result of” or “because” they already had believed and in doing so had already received forgiveness of their sins (John 1:12; John 3:14-18; John 5:24; John 11:25-26; Acts 10:43; Acts 13:39; Acts 16:31; Acts 26:18; Romans 10:9; Ephesians 1:12-14). This interpretation of the passage is also consistent with the message recorded in Peter’s next two sermons to unbelievers where he associates the forgiveness of sins with the act of repentance and faith in Christ without even mentioning baptism (Acts 3:17-26; Acts 4:8-12).
In addition to Acts 2:38, there are three other verses where the Greek word eis is used in conjunction with the word “baptize” or “baptism.” The first of these is Matthew 3:11, “baptize you with water for repentance.” Clearly the Greek word eis cannot mean “in order to get” in this passage. They were not baptized “in order to get repentance,” but were “baptized because they had repented.” The second passage is Romans 6:3 where we have the phrase “baptized into (eis) His death.” This again fits with the meaning “because of” or in "regard to." The third and final passage is 1 Corinthians 10:2 and the phrase “baptized into (eis) Moses in the cloud and in the sea.” Again, eis cannot mean “in order to get” in this passage because the Israelites were not baptized in order to get Moses to be their leader, but because he was their leader and had led them out of Egypt. If one is consistent with the way the preposition eis is used in conjunction with baptism, we must conclude that Acts 2:38 is indeed referring to their being baptized “because” they had received forgiveness of their sins. Some other verses where the Greek preposition eis does not mean “in order to obtain” are Matthew 28:19; 1 Peter 3:21; Acts 19:3; 1 Corinthians 1:15; and 12:13.
Part 2 coming --
One example of how this preposition is used in other Scriptures is seen in Matthew 12:41 where the word eis communicates the “result” of an action. In this case it is said that the people of Nineveh “repented at the preaching of Jonah” (the word translated “at” is the same Greek word eis). Clearly, the meaning of this passage is that they repented “because of’” or “as the result of” Jonah’s preaching. In the same way, it would be possible that Acts 2:38 is indeed communicating the fact that they were to be baptized “as the result of” or “because” they already had believed and in doing so had already received forgiveness of their sins (John 1:12; John 3:14-18; John 5:24; John 11:25-26; Acts 10:43; Acts 13:39; Acts 16:31; Acts 26:18; Romans 10:9; Ephesians 1:12-14). This interpretation of the passage is also consistent with the message recorded in Peter’s next two sermons to unbelievers where he associates the forgiveness of sins with the act of repentance and faith in Christ without even mentioning baptism (Acts 3:17-26; Acts 4:8-12).
In addition to Acts 2:38, there are three other verses where the Greek word eis is used in conjunction with the word “baptize” or “baptism.” The first of these is Matthew 3:11, “baptize you with water for repentance.” Clearly the Greek word eis cannot mean “in order to get” in this passage. They were not baptized “in order to get repentance,” but were “baptized because they had repented.” The second passage is Romans 6:3 where we have the phrase “baptized into (eis) His death.” This again fits with the meaning “because of” or in "regard to." The third and final passage is 1 Corinthians 10:2 and the phrase “baptized into (eis) Moses in the cloud and in the sea.” Again, eis cannot mean “in order to get” in this passage because the Israelites were not baptized in order to get Moses to be their leader, but because he was their leader and had led them out of Egypt. If one is consistent with the way the preposition eis is used in conjunction with baptism, we must conclude that Acts 2:38 is indeed referring to their being baptized “because” they had received forgiveness of their sins. Some other verses where the Greek preposition eis does not mean “in order to obtain” are Matthew 28:19; 1 Peter 3:21; Acts 19:3; 1 Corinthians 1:15; and 12:13.
Part 2 coming --
Marcia
Active Member
Part 2 --
The grammatical evidence surrounding this verse and the preposition eis are clear that while both views on this verse are well within the context and the range of possible meanings of the passage, the majority of the evidence is in favor that the best possible definition of the word “for” in this context is either “because of” or “in regard to” and not “in order to get.” Therefore, Acts 2:38, when interpreted correctly, does not teach that baptism is required for salvation.
Besides the precise meaning of the preposition translated “for” in this passage, there is another grammatical aspect of this verse to carefully consider—the change between the second person and third person between the verbs and pronouns in the passage. For example, in Peter’s commands to repent and be baptized the Greek verb translated “repent” is in the second person plural while the verb “be baptized,” is in the third person singular. When we couple this with the fact that the pronoun “your” in the phrase “forgiveness of your sins” is also second person plural, we see an important distinction being made that helps us understand this passage. The result of this change from second person plural to third person singular and back would seem to connect the phrase “forgiveness of your sins” directly with the command to “repent.” Therefore, when you take into account the change in person and plurality, essentially what you have is “You (plural) repent for the forgiveness of your (plural) sins, and let each one (singular) of you be baptized (singular).” Or, to put it in a more distinct way: “You all repent for the forgiveness of all of your sins, and let each one of you be baptized.”
Another error that is made by those who believe Acts 2:38 teaches baptism is required for salvation is what is sometimes called the Negative Inference Fallacy. Simply put, this is the idea that just because a statement is true, we cannot assume all negations (or opposites) of that statement are true. In other words, just because Acts 2:38 says “repent and be baptized….for the forgiveness of sins…and the gift of the Holy Spirit,” it does not mean that if one repents and is not baptized, he will not receive forgiveness of sins or the gift of the Holy Spirit.
There is an important difference between a condition of salvation and a requirement for salvation. The Bible is clear that belief is both a condition and a requirement, but the same cannot be said for baptism. The Bible does not say that if a man is not baptized then he will not be saved. If that were true, Jesus would never have been able to assure the criminal crucified with Him that he would be with Him in paradise that very day (Luke 23:39-43). One can add any number of conditions to faith (which is required for salvation), and the person can still be saved. For example if a person believes, is baptized, goes to church, and gives to the poor he will be saved. Where the error in thinking occurs is if one assumes all these other conditions, “baptism, going to church, giving to the poor,” are required for one to be saved. While they might be the evidence of salvation, they are not a requirement for salvation. (For a more thorough explanation of this logical fallacy, please see the Question: Does Mark 16:16 teach that baptism is required for salvation?).
The grammatical evidence surrounding this verse and the preposition eis are clear that while both views on this verse are well within the context and the range of possible meanings of the passage, the majority of the evidence is in favor that the best possible definition of the word “for” in this context is either “because of” or “in regard to” and not “in order to get.” Therefore, Acts 2:38, when interpreted correctly, does not teach that baptism is required for salvation.
Besides the precise meaning of the preposition translated “for” in this passage, there is another grammatical aspect of this verse to carefully consider—the change between the second person and third person between the verbs and pronouns in the passage. For example, in Peter’s commands to repent and be baptized the Greek verb translated “repent” is in the second person plural while the verb “be baptized,” is in the third person singular. When we couple this with the fact that the pronoun “your” in the phrase “forgiveness of your sins” is also second person plural, we see an important distinction being made that helps us understand this passage. The result of this change from second person plural to third person singular and back would seem to connect the phrase “forgiveness of your sins” directly with the command to “repent.” Therefore, when you take into account the change in person and plurality, essentially what you have is “You (plural) repent for the forgiveness of your (plural) sins, and let each one (singular) of you be baptized (singular).” Or, to put it in a more distinct way: “You all repent for the forgiveness of all of your sins, and let each one of you be baptized.”
Another error that is made by those who believe Acts 2:38 teaches baptism is required for salvation is what is sometimes called the Negative Inference Fallacy. Simply put, this is the idea that just because a statement is true, we cannot assume all negations (or opposites) of that statement are true. In other words, just because Acts 2:38 says “repent and be baptized….for the forgiveness of sins…and the gift of the Holy Spirit,” it does not mean that if one repents and is not baptized, he will not receive forgiveness of sins or the gift of the Holy Spirit.
There is an important difference between a condition of salvation and a requirement for salvation. The Bible is clear that belief is both a condition and a requirement, but the same cannot be said for baptism. The Bible does not say that if a man is not baptized then he will not be saved. If that were true, Jesus would never have been able to assure the criminal crucified with Him that he would be with Him in paradise that very day (Luke 23:39-43). One can add any number of conditions to faith (which is required for salvation), and the person can still be saved. For example if a person believes, is baptized, goes to church, and gives to the poor he will be saved. Where the error in thinking occurs is if one assumes all these other conditions, “baptism, going to church, giving to the poor,” are required for one to be saved. While they might be the evidence of salvation, they are not a requirement for salvation. (For a more thorough explanation of this logical fallacy, please see the Question: Does Mark 16:16 teach that baptism is required for salvation?).
Marcia
Active Member
Part 3
The fact that baptism is not required to receive forgiveness and the gift of the Holy Spirit should also be evident by simply reading a little farther in the book of Acts. In Acts 10:43, Peter tells Cornelius that “through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins” (please note that nothing at this point has been mentioned about being baptized, yet Peter connects believing in Christ with the act of receiving forgiveness for sins). The next thing that happens is, having believed Peter’s message about Christ, the “Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message” (Acts 10:44). It is only after they had believed, and therefore received forgiveness of their sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit, that Cornelius and his household were baptized (Acts 10:47-48). The context and the passage are very clear; Cornelius and his household received both forgiveness of sins and the Holy Spirit before they were ever baptized. In fact, the reason Peter allowed them to be baptized was that they showed evidence of receiving the Holy Spirit “just as Peter and the Jewish believers” had.
In conclusion, Acts 2:38 does not teach that baptism is required for salvation.
All 3 parts from article at
http://www.gotquestions.org/baptism-acts-2-38.html
The fact that baptism is not required to receive forgiveness and the gift of the Holy Spirit should also be evident by simply reading a little farther in the book of Acts. In Acts 10:43, Peter tells Cornelius that “through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins” (please note that nothing at this point has been mentioned about being baptized, yet Peter connects believing in Christ with the act of receiving forgiveness for sins). The next thing that happens is, having believed Peter’s message about Christ, the “Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message” (Acts 10:44). It is only after they had believed, and therefore received forgiveness of their sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit, that Cornelius and his household were baptized (Acts 10:47-48). The context and the passage are very clear; Cornelius and his household received both forgiveness of sins and the Holy Spirit before they were ever baptized. In fact, the reason Peter allowed them to be baptized was that they showed evidence of receiving the Holy Spirit “just as Peter and the Jewish believers” had.
In conclusion, Acts 2:38 does not teach that baptism is required for salvation.
All 3 parts from article at
http://www.gotquestions.org/baptism-acts-2-38.html
And yet no English translation that I am aware of translates it like your source suggests. Not even the HCSB which is sponsored by a Baptist group.
And that is why we are not KJVO or any-translation-O
The principle here to learn is that some things are not translatable.
Meaning is always lost in translation (in some things). That is why it is incumbent on the student of Scripture to either have some knowledge of the Greek and Hebrew, or go to sources that can explain the Greek and Hebrew. There are enough sources available to us today that there is no excuse for anyone to avoid the original languages.
Marcia
Active Member
The article pointed out other places where "for" is used in this way. But even without a discussion of this word, one only has to study the whole NT and the whole of the Bible to get the clear answer: water baptism is not required for salvation. There are too many passages that teach salvation by faith alone, so we know the verses used by baptismal regeneration proponents are not saying that. And when they are examined in context, we see it all too clearly.
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
DHK,
Your whole responce builds off of this statement.
The fact is that statement is irrelevant to the discussion. Why because I'm currently speaking to you in english. Neither you nor I speak Greek or Hebrew or more likely what Jesus spoke was Aramaic. I do speak some modern Hebrew but that is neither here nor there.
Pray as it is used in English has multiple meanings. It is a vehicle of communication. It can be directed to God or man. Lets review Shakespear. He uses this term interchangeably. As I use pray its irrelevant what hebrew word is used because I don't speaking hebrew. I've communicated to you and that is a prayer to you. In English I differentiate between you and God therefore the context of my praying to you is different than the context of my praying to God. It doesn't at this point matter what word in Greek is used in the NT because we're not speaking Greek.
Same thing with the RC. If they define in english that praying to Mary is different than praying to God then why go back to the bible? Because they are talking about two different things in English. Not in Greek or Hebrew.
The bible does not define english words. English words communicate as best it can what the greek and hebrew words of the bible is trying to communicate. So you must judge in English what it is you are talking about before comparisons with the bible. Certainly you don't suppose if I talk to you it is the same as I talk to God? This is the same with the word pray. ie... I pray thee well. Once you define what it is in english you are talking about then you can do bible comparisons. But you haven't properly defined what it is being discussed.
You claim the bible is your only authority. The truth of the matter is you as do all people read theology back into the bible. Whether your Catholic, Baptist, Prysbeterian. You can attempt to say you don't but that is not the truth. For instance show me where in the bible it says Mary is dead? You won't find it. So what authority are you using to determine that she is?
Your whole responce builds off of this statement.
The fact is that statement is irrelevant to the discussion. Why because I'm currently speaking to you in english. Neither you nor I speak Greek or Hebrew or more likely what Jesus spoke was Aramaic. I do speak some modern Hebrew but that is neither here nor there.
Pray as it is used in English has multiple meanings. It is a vehicle of communication. It can be directed to God or man. Lets review Shakespear. He uses this term interchangeably. As I use pray its irrelevant what hebrew word is used because I don't speaking hebrew. I've communicated to you and that is a prayer to you. In English I differentiate between you and God therefore the context of my praying to you is different than the context of my praying to God. It doesn't at this point matter what word in Greek is used in the NT because we're not speaking Greek.
Same thing with the RC. If they define in english that praying to Mary is different than praying to God then why go back to the bible? Because they are talking about two different things in English. Not in Greek or Hebrew.
The bible does not define english words. English words communicate as best it can what the greek and hebrew words of the bible is trying to communicate. So you must judge in English what it is you are talking about before comparisons with the bible. Certainly you don't suppose if I talk to you it is the same as I talk to God? This is the same with the word pray. ie... I pray thee well. Once you define what it is in english you are talking about then you can do bible comparisons. But you haven't properly defined what it is being discussed.
You claim the bible is your only authority. The truth of the matter is you as do all people read theology back into the bible. Whether your Catholic, Baptist, Prysbeterian. You can attempt to say you don't but that is not the truth. For instance show me where in the bible it says Mary is dead? You won't find it. So what authority are you using to determine that she is?
It's a grace. If anything re God is a work, I'm well and truly stuffed...
- Status