From: Paul S. Dixon (dixonps@juno.com)
Date: Fri Jan 09 1998 - 12:32:39 EST
Edward, Carlton, et al:
It certainly appears that the causal EIS interpretation of Acts 2:38
may have been motivated more out of desperation. There is a more
basic problem, however, that should be addressed.
A common assumption made by most interpretations of Acts 2:38 is
that a biconditionality exists within the verse, that is, that the verse
implies that if they did not both repent of their sins and receive
baptism,
then their sins would not be forgiven. The verse does not say this,
and it is not valid to infer it. I bring this up only because it is a
typical
and foundational error made, and greatly affects one's interpretation of
the
verse. It has to be addressed.
The question being answered here is, TI POIHSWMEN (v. 37),
not TI ME DEI POIEIN hINA SWQW (16:30). The DEI in 16:30 requires
that the answer given by Paul in v. 31 be taken biconditionally.
PISTEUSON EPI TON KURION IHSOUN KAI SWQHSNi. Nothing is
said in 16:31, however, about baptism as a requirement, or even a
condition
for salvation. Of course, some recognize this and see no contradiction
with their assumption made in 2:38 because they posit two different
requirements for salvation in these verses (or, perhaps, their
hermeneutic
does not require them to care [no intended slam here]).
I note two further considerations. First, scripture nowhere says if a
man
is not baptized, then he cannot have his sins forgiven. Second, in the
long ending of Mark (16:16) belief and baptism are given as conditions
for salvation (16a). The only requirement, however, is belief, as
specifically
stated by Christ in 16b, hO DE APISTHSAS KATAKRIQHSETAI.
My point: adherents of sola fiducia have nothing to fear when they get
to Acts 2:38 which in no way suggests an alternative either for the
Israelites then, or for the Gentiles elsewhere, even if EIS is taken
as aim.
For more, see my homepage below.
Dr. Paul S. Dixon, Pastor
Wilsonville, Oregon
http://users.aol.com/dixonps
http://users.why.net/think/greek
On Thu, 08 Jan 1998 16:11:45 -0500 (EST) Edward Hobbs
<EHOBBS@wellesley.edu> writes:
>Colleagues:
>
>Some time prior to the message (by me) quoted by Vincent Broman, on
>the
>so-called "causal use of EIS", this little exchange occurred.
>
>Carlton Winbery wrote:
>>> ... "causal eis" is very convenient for a Baptist.
>
>[Edward Hobbs responded:]
>
> Ralph Marcus (a Jew, not a Methodist!), a Greek scholar of one
>
>hundred times the knowledge and skill of Mantey, blasted Mantey out of
>the
>water, twice, each time Mantey claimed to have found examples in the
>papyri
>and other Hellenistic literature of "causal eis". Mantey couldn't
>read
>the papyri with any intelligence, and he absolutely couldn't read
>Hellenistic literature at all, which he proved frequently IN PERSON at
>
>meetings of the CSBL, where he always stumbled and hemmed and hawed
>when a
>text he hadn't seen a month in advance was raised for discussion.
> He wrote me a nasty, handwritten letter of great length,
>attacking
>me for my rejection of all of his examples; whereupon Marcus wrote his
>
>first article, then his second when Mantey persisted.
>
>
>Carlton Winbery then wrote:
>
>>Seriously, I still advocate the reading of an old favorite The
>Expositor's
>>Greek Testament by W.R. Nicoll at Acts 2:38. I agree with him that
>this is
>>the preposition with the accusative used, as Nicoll puts it, to
>signify
>>aim. The early Christians would connect the forgiveness of sins with
>the
>>death and resurrection of Christ signified in baptism. This is in
>>disagreement with what Brooks and I put in the Syntax book, but I
>have had
>>occasion to read much further on this since then.
>
>
>And Carlton later added:
>
>> ....... I used to argue for the causal EIS
>+ acc. but
>>going back and reading some of the old classic commentaries plus the
>fact
>>that only those with a theological need for it were pointing to it
>led me
>>to study the wider spectrum of the Greek world. The fact that it can
>not
>>be demonstrated elsewhere is strong evidence against it.
>
>
>This imaginary use of EIS has come up from time to time; but no Greek
>grammarian other than Mantey tried to make a case for it.
>
>
>Edward Hobbs
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:51 EDT