From: Arthur Barry (arbry7@earthlink.net)
Date: Wed Jan 07 1998 - 21:03:40 EST
I appreciate the separation between grammar and theology and I marvel
that this resource continues to supply so much help to people like me by
maintaining that tenuous line. As a preacher and teacher of God's Word I
value the opportunity to develop my objectivity when considering some of
the topics discussed, here. Of course, "lurkdom" offers only a low-level
dose of that medicine. I scanned the archives on this subject of
"baptism/remission of sins" and found at least one version of the
question that I want to ask but the thread went inevitably theological,
bringing in a variety of proof texts.
My question is relating to the context of Acts 2. When you read what
follows Acts 2:38, we find:
Jews being told to save themselves (2:40) - Is it correct to understand
they were not yet saved?
Those who gladly received Peter's word (2:41) - Is it correct to
understand this as being a "turning point" for them?
They were baptized (2:41) - Is it correct to understand that the word
they gladly received was the message about Jesus which culminated in the
command to be baptized?
They were added (2:41) - Is it correct to understand that they were not
added before they were saved?
Are there grammatical reasons to challenge the context of this passage?
I am sincerely asking for help with this text, not a theological
discussion of whether the N.T. teaches baptism for remission of sins. If
I am wrong about the conclusion I come to when I read this passage (and
only this passage) then can somebody who recognizes where I have gone
wrong, please point out my error. I am only interested in Acts 2.
Hopefully that will keep the discussion as clinical as possible. Is that
acceptable?
Thanks in advance and if this is not the time to go into this again,
thanks anyway!
Arthur
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:47 EDT