Every Doctrine Could Cost You....!

The English word “for” has, as one of its meanings, “because of.” However, the Greek preposition eis that underlies the English word “for” never has a causal function. It always has its primary, basic, accusative thrust: unto, into, to, toward.
We must not go to the text, decide what we think it means, and assign a grammatical meaning that coincides with our preconceived understanding. We must begin with the grammar and seek to understand every text in light of the normal, natural, common meaning of the grammatical and lexical construction.
The exact same grammatical construction of Acts 2:38 is found in Matthew 26:28—“for the remission of sins” (eis aphesin hamartion).
Matthew 26:28 "For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."
You wouldn't dare say Christ's blood was "shed for many because of the remission of sins". Jesus’ blood, the blood of the covenant, was undeniably shed for many “in order to acquire remission of sins.” This is the natural and normal meaning of the Greek preposition—toward, in the direction of. Had the Holy Spirit intended to say that baptism is “because of” or “on account of” past forgiveness, He would have used the Greek preposition that conveys that very idea: dia with the accusative.

Evidence from Strong's and Thayer's lexicons

Strongs G1519
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1519&t=KJV
- into, unto, to, towards, for, among

Thayer's
εἰς a Prep. governing the Accusative, and denoting entrance into, or direction and limit: into, to, towards, for, among.

 

Are you sure of that? I would not be so dogmatic if I were you.

Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto (eis) repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

John says I baptize because you have repented. And that indeed is what he did. He did not baptize them in order that they would receive repentance, as you would have us believe by your assertion and theology.

 

Again the word 'eis' which Strongs says that in Matthew 3:11 again means -
1) into, unto, to, towards, for, among.

Of course anyone could pick out the word 'for' found anywhere in the Bible, but we can look at other verses with the exact same grammatical construction of Acts 2:38 such as Matthew 26:28—“for the remission of sins” (eis aphesin hamartion).
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."
Matthew 26:28 "For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."
You wouldn't dare say Christ's blood was "shed for many because of the remission of sins". Jesus’ blood, the blood of the covenant, was undeniably shed for many “in order to acquire remission of sins.” This is the natural and normal meaning of the Greek preposition—toward, in the direction of.

 

I'm afraid that he is getting himself confused between the word eis (translated = for) and the word peri (translated = for).

Another look at Matthew 26:28:
"For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."

The 'for' is used two times here, but their underlying greek words are different.
'for many' is peri polys
'for the remission of sins' is eis aphesin hamartion (Same as in Acts 2:38)

eis definition is: into, unto, to, towards, for, among
peri definition is: about, concerning, on account of, because of, around, near

The author of the quoted article is quite confused; eis nowhere means 'because of' but is translated 'for' whereas peri does mean 'because of' and is translated 'for' but peri isn't found in Acts 2:38.

 

We don't need to pick out any other references, do we?
Your statement was that eis is NEVER used in a causal sense. You used an all-inclusive word NEVER, meaning having no omissions. You said there was not one case in the Bible where the word could not be used in a causal sense.
You are wrong and not willing to admit it.

Look at it again. It does not matter if it could be translated: for or unto, as the Lexicons say. The words still mean the same: "because of."

Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance:

Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto (because of) repentance:

It was because of their repentance that John would baptize them. There is no other meaning that that verse could have. You are just plain wrong in your assertion. And as it is with Mat.3:11 so it is with Acts 2:38 for the Bible does not contradict itself.

 

Since we're talking about doctrine here, I'm still waiting for defender to comment on Cornelius. Was he saved before baptism?

 

Oh, I just noticed that the verse you quoted supports my argument. The word eis wasn't translated 'for' but was translated 'unto' and to use this in Acts 2:38 it would say....

"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

Again, baptized unto the remission of sins.
Baptism clearly is for the remission of sins.

 

So Christ shed his blood, Christ died because there was already remission of sins?
How foolish - your denying that we need Christ's blood to have remission of sins!

 

As eis was used in Mat. 3:11 so it is used in Acts 2:38.
In both cases it is used as "because of".
John baptized "because of" their repentance.
Peter baptized because their sins had been remitted.

 

I am not denying anything.
Please explain Mat. 3:11 for me.

 

Def of the faith, DHK answered you on your objections to what was said in my post about the word "for." It is used to mean "because of."

What about other scripture that shows we are saved before baptism, like Cornelius? Amy asked about that.

 

"Whatever ways the Greek preposition 'eis' can be and is rendered in English (and there are several), one way it cannot be legitimately rendered is as "(in order) to receive", which happens to be the way you are taking and rendering the word, sub silento."

Signed, Language Cop

P. S. Meet Language Cop, the alter ego of EdSutton

 

defenderofthefaith, I have two questions for you, the first of which I find somewhat whimsical, and the second I ask for information.

As I have read your posts, on this thread, it would appear that you and/or the body you are associated with does not condone the use of musical instrument, is that correct? Assuming for 'the purposes of argument' that is correct, how do you expect to respond when the Lord returns, the trumpet sounds, and His very voice is as that of the trumpet? (Mt. 24:31; I Cor. 15:52; I Thes. 4:16; Rev. 1:10-11) I'm left really wonderin' on that one!

The second question is for the purpose of my own information. I do not recall having seen anything you have said about this so I'm curious. (BTW, I notice you have 112 posts. All I've read are those on this thread, since I got on it early, and have followed it, unlike many, since it would be impossible for me to follow all threads, hence I generally just get into those whoese title catches my eye, and piques my curiosity, as did this one.)

The question is this: Do you personally use a 1611 King James or do you use some other more modern version of the Bible? Again, I'm just wonderin'.

Ed

 

OK now I know the doctrine of the CoC, so let me move on. The CoC believe that in order to be saved one must
Hear
Believe
Repent
Confess
and be Baptized

I asked you if you could lose your salvation and your answer was yes, thus I ask you this question in order to regain that salvation would you not have to
Hear
Believe
Repent
Confess
and be Baptized, every time you sin, since in your own words, you said that it could be lost and the only way to gain salvation is those steps, so now I ask you how many times have you been baptized.

Now you are either a lost sinner by your own standards or you are WRONG

Now here is what the word of God says
Joh 6:26-40 Jesus answered them and said, Truly, truly, I say to you, You seek Me not because you saw the miracles, but because you ate the loaves and were filled. (27) Do not labor for the food that perishes, but for that food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you. For God the Father sealed Him. (28) Then they said to Him, What shall we do that we might work the works of God? (29) Jesus answered and said to them, This is the work of God, that you believe on Him whom He has sent. (30) Therefore they said to Him, What sign do you show then, so that we may see and believe you? What do you work? (31) Our fathers ate the manna in the desert, as it is written, "He gave them bread from Heaven to eat." (32) Then Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Moses did not give you that bread from Heaven, but My Father gives you the true bread from Heaven. (33) For the bread of God is He who comes down from Heaven and gives life to the world. (34) Then they said to him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. (35) And Jesus said to them, I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes on Me shall never thirst. (36) But I said to you that you also have seen Me and do not believe. (37) All that the Father gives Me shall come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will in no way cast out. (38) For I came down from Heaven, not to do My own will but the will of Him who sent Me. (39) And this is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all which He has given Me I should lose nothing but should raise it up again at the last day. (40) And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes on Him should have everlasting life. And I will raise him up at the last day.

I am his because he says so

2Co 1:19-22 For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us; by me and Silas and Timothy; was not yes and no, but in Him was, yes! (20) For all the promises of God in Him are yes, and in Him Amen, to the glory of God by us. (21) But He confirming us and anointing us with you in Christ is God. (22) And He has sealed us and having given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.

Eph 1:13 in whom also you, hearing the Word of Truth, the gospel of our salvation, in whom also believing, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,

Eph 4:30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you are sealed until the day of redemption.

I could go on and on but you get the point, the Bible clearly teaches that we are sealed.

 

Alright; well firstly we see that John's baptism was for also for remission of sins (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3) and that it was the "...baptism of repentance".

Matthew 3:11
"I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

The word 'for' is still eis which, again; means: into, unto, to, towards, for, among [source]. Nowhere does it give us the idea that it means 'because of'.
The word 'repentance' here is metanoia (μετάνοια) which means:
- a change of mind, as it appears to one who repents, of a purpose he has formed or of something he has done.

The baptism of John was a baptism of two things: 1) repentance (change of mind) and 2) the remission of sins.

I can't seem to find a verse that actually says John baptized them because they had earlier repented (not denying there might be one) but the verses I've looked at all imply that his baptism was into repentance and remission of sins.

Marcia, tell me, do you think that Christ's blood was shed because of the remission of sins or you do think that it was shed so that we might have the forgiveness of sins?

Actually, it does have the available meaning of "in order to recieve".
Matthew 26:28
"For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins"

Christs blood was was shed for (peri) many for (eis) the remission of sins.

Looking at the definitions of the words...
Christs blood was shed on acount of many in order to recieve the forgiveness of sins.

The exact same grammatical construction of Matthew 26:28 is founded in Acts 2:38 (the main verse in debate) the words "for the remission of sins" in Mat. 26:28 in greek are eis aphesis hamartia and it just so happens that in Acts 2:28 these exact same greek words are again used eis aphesis hamartia - "for the remission of sins" so when Matthew 26:28 implies "in order to recieve the forgiveness of sins" it is the same with Acts 2:38.

DHK, you ask me to explain Matthew 3:11; now you explain Matthew 26:28 because I honestly don't believe Christ died because we already had forgiveness of sins.

 

I know it looks like I'm ignoring this question Amy, but my reponse is going to be quite lengthy so I've been putting it off to deal with more quickly answered questions (about Acts 2:38) but when I come back from church tonight, I will give this question my full attention.

 

Then you fail to read--especially read the context.
What saith the Scripture?

Matthew 3:7-8 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:

He would not baptize them until he could see the fruit of their repentance.
He would baptize them only on the basis of their repentance; because they repented. This meaning is so obvious it cannot be missed.

Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto (because of, or on the basis of your) repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

You said this:
"The word 'for' is still eis which, again; means: into, unto, to, towards, for, among [source]. Nowhere does it give us the idea that it means 'because of'.
The word 'repentance' here is metanoia (μετάνοια) which means:
- a change of mind, as it appears to one who repents, of a purpose he has formed or of something he has done."

If this is true, why did John just not baptize the whole lot of them? Then they would have been assured of repenting. Their baptism would be for (toward) repentance--giving them repentance. That is an easy way to get saved. He could just baptize them all and, presto, they would have no worries; they would all be saved. That is your theology with your forced interpretation of the word eis.

 

Im still waiting defender of faith for your answer, HOW MANY TIMES HAVE YOU BEEN BAPTIZED. If the only way to gain salvation is to be baptized (according to your standards in the church of Christ) and you can lose that said salvation (according to the standards of the church of Christ) one would have to conclude that the only way to regain that salvation after losing it would be to go thru the same standards that you say you must do to gain it. CORRECT

Now if you tell me which Im pretty sure your going to that after you are baptized then all you have to do is pray for forgiveness, then I already would ask you to back that up with scripture.

Once a person is truly saved and there name is written in the Lambs book of Life, its there for ever. No one, not even yourself can break that seal and if you think you can, then you must think yourself to be above GOD, because the scripture says that you cannot.

Eph 1:11-14 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, (12) so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory. (13) In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, (14) who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.

Eph 4:25-32 Therefore, having put away falsehood, let each one of you speak the truth with his neighbor, for we are members one of another. (26) Be angry and do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, (27) and give no opportunity to the devil. (28) Let the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor, doing honest work with his own hands, so that he may have something to share with anyone in need. (29) Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear. (30) And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. (31) Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. (32) Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.

 

Ah, firstly we must make a distinction between which baptism your speaking of.
I take it your talking about water baptism as found in Acts 2:38 and Romans 6.
But lets look at the different baptisms mentioned and shown to us throughout the NT.

The very first mention of the Holy Spirit baptism in the New Testament is by John the baptizer; he said: “I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me...will baptize you in the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 3:11).
Then, just before His ascension, Jesus told the apostles to wait in Jerusalem until “clothed with power from on high” (Luke 24:49). In John chapters 14-16, Jesus made several specific promises to the apostles concerning the coming of the Spirit—the “Comforter” or “Helper” (parakletos)—upon them, to empower them to do the work of an apostle (i.e., to recall the words Jesus had spoken to them, to speak and write by inspiration, and to launch the Christian religion; ect).

Jesus spoke more of Holy Spirit baptism when He told the apostles that the earlier statement made in Luke 24:49 applied to them, and would come to pass “not many days hence” (Acts 1:4-5). Jesus also stated that the “power” that they would receive would be from the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:8). Notice that Jesus made an explicit reference to the very statement that John had said previously in Matthew 3: “for John indeed baptized with water; but ye [referring to the apostles] shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit not many days hence” (Acts 1:5). Jesus specifically and explicitly identified the Holy Spirit baptism that He would administer (in keeping with John’s prediction) would take place within a few days, and would be confined to the apostles at that time.
The fulfillment of the Holy Spirit baptism is found in Acts 2 when the Spirit was poured out only upon the apostles. They were the recipients of the baptism of the Holy Spirit at this time.

Now, about Cornelius....
Acts 10:44 "While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word." and not until verse 48 does it say they were baptized with water.
This Holy Ghost that "fell on all them" was the Holy Spirit baptism; for when Peter was describing the experience of the Gentiles in Acts 10 Peter said it was like the experience of the apostles in Acts 2.
Acts 11:15-17
“And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them, even as on us [apostles] at the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit. If then God gave unto them the like gift as he did also unto us...."
Peter undeniably linked the baptism of the Holy Spirit aforementioned by John in Matthew 3:11, and applied by Jesus to the apostles in Acts 1:5, with the same experience of Cornelius and his houshold.

The first recipients of Holy Spirit baptism, as we have seen, were the Jewish apostles on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2. It was so that they could open the church and to write, speak, and confirm the word. The second recipients of Holy Spirit baptism were the Gentile members of the household of Cornelius in Acts 10. It convinced Jewish Christians that Gentiles were fit prospects for the reception of the Gospel, and valid candidates for entrance into the kingdom (Acts 10:34-35,45; 11:18). The Holy Spirit baptism filled two unique purposes: 1) to prepare the apostles for their apostolic (not just Christian) roles, and 2) to provide a demonstration to show that Gentiles were to be allowed to become Christians.

The household of Cornelius went under the Holy Spirit baptism, and then immediately went under the baptism referred to in Acts 2:38; Romans 6; Acts 22:16 - the baptism that washes away sins.

Cornelius was not saved before water baptism (Acts 10:48)

 

Okay, good point, I can understand that.

The word eis means: into, unto, to, towards, for, among [source].

So if we look at Matt. 3:11 as "....baptize you with water among repentance..." we can understand this verse a little better.
Among, a literal definiton, has the meaning 'by the joint or reciprocal action of' (dictionary.com) so he baptized them with water with the joint action of repentance. Yes he did baptize them because they repented; but the word eis doesn't ever mean 'because of' it was used saying he baptized them with the joint action of repentance.
Remember; John's baptism was called a 'baptism of repentance' (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3; Acts 13:24)

DHK, you ask me to explain Matthew 3:11; now you explain Matthew 26:28 because I honestly don't believe Christ died because we already had forgiveness of sins.