The following dialogue took place in August 1998 on a Protestant bulletin board. The discussion began when Martin, a Catholic, was picking up a previous dialog in which Dave, a Reformed Protestant, had stated his understanding of baptism, that faith and the power of regeneration that faith & the Holy Spirit produces, that someone who has faith will want to be baptized. Martin begins by questioning Dave about this. The dialog is joined by another Reformed Protestant, L.D., and Brent Arias, a Catholic, who begin a dialog on the hermeneutical approach (which deals with the understanding and interpretation of texts) of a key passage on baptism. The Catholic participants words appear in black, the Protestants words are in blue.
MARTIN
Dave, just curious, which verses do you find that support the notion of the Holy Spirit taking up residence apart from baptism and before repentence?
Especially when Acts 2:38 is relatively clear that the gift of the Holy Spirit is received with baptism.
"And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."
DAVE
First, let's look at your proof text: "And Peter said to them, 'Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.'" Does this say anything about the temporal sequence? It says the three things are connected, period. (I would also point out in passing that baptism "for the forgiveness of sins" can be parallel to "jump for joy," i.e., a response, not a cause.)
Counterexample One: Simon the Sorcerer (Acts 8). The Samaritans (v.11) and Simon (v.13) believed and were baptized (by an Apostle) prior to receiving the Holy Spirit (v.17). Only later did Simon repent (v.24).
Counterexample Two: The conversion of Cornelius (Acts 10, explained in Acts 11). Peter preached, the Gentiles believed, they received the Holy Spirit, then they were baptized in water. (Peter's message included nothing about repentance from deeds.) It was only after Peter's explanation that the Jewish believers inferred, "So then, God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life."
Those are two counterexample, and since they are in narrative form, the temporal sequence is fairly evident.
BRENT
So, in Acts 8, the "spirit was given" not with, but after baptism in the "laying on of hands." (Acts 8:17). Unfortunately, if this proves that the Spirit is not intimately involved (and granted) with baptism - then it also proves that the Spirit is not given by faith alone. Since presumably there is no such thing as someone who is saved but does not have the Spirit - then his own reasoning proves that salvation is not by faith - but by the laying on of hands (a proposition no one accepts).
The truth of the matter is that the phrase "had not yet received the Spirit" is here a trope for "had not yet been strengthened in the Spirit," or that is "had not yet been confirmed." Anyway, elsewhere it is written:
Romans 8:9 But you are not in the flesh, you are in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Any one who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.
1 Corinthians 12:13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body -- Jews or Greeks, slaves or free -- and all were made to drink of one Spirit.
Quoting Dave. "It says the three things are connected, period. (I would also point out in passing that baptism "for the forgiveness of sins" can be parallel to "jump for joy," i.e., a response, not a cause.)"
Actually, this parallel is illegal in Greek (although legal in English). The word "eis" in Greek which we translate as "for," cannot denote a causal relationship. To say "for" in the sense of "because of," in Greek -one says "hoti" or "dia." Now, "Eis" is used in the New Testament 1594 times. Of those, only once in Matthew 12:41 is there the possibility that "because of" is a sense of "eis." Lets look at that verse:
The men of Ninevah will stand up with this generation at the judgement, and will condemn it because [hoti] they repented at [eis] the preaching of Jonah.
The Arndt and Gingrich Lexicon lists this verse as a "controversial" point wherein some might say that "eis," could connote a causal relationship - but notice that it *still* is the word "hoti" that is really doing the work of the causal relationship. Indeed, we could just as easily say that "eis" here means "during," not "because of."
So, what does all this mean? Acts 2:38 is saying "be baptised for [the purpose of] forgiveness of sins." This exactly parallels the usage of "eis" in Acts 4:30:
Acts 4:30 while thou stretchest out thy hand to[eis] heal, and signs and wonders are performed through the name of thy holy servant Jesus."
Notice how "eis" means "for the purpose of," or "to cause" as in "to cause healing." Using "eis" to denote a causal relationship is illegal in Greek.
DAVE
You supply all the proof I need:
"They repented at [eis] the preaching of Jonah." (Mt 12:41)
"Repent and be baptised ... to [eis] the forgiveness of sins." (Acts 2:38)
The preposition eis has the primary meaning "into" (as moving into a space). The preposition can also be used to mean "looking into" or "in view of," as can be clearly seen from the Matthew quote. The Ninevites did not repent "in order to achieve" Jonah's preaching; they did so "in view of" his preaching. Same meaning applies to the Acts 2:38 passage. (The same would apply to my "jump for joy" - jump in view of [motivated by] your joy.)
BTW, this was a minor point in my overall post. What about your initial question: are baptism, the Holy Spirit, and repentance linked temporally, as you suggested, or are they linked, but not causally/temporally?
MARTIN
On your main point, I am saying baptism is the cause of the regeneration by the Holy Spirit and the remission of sins. John 3:5; Acts 22:16; Col. 2:12-13; 1 Peter 3:21; Gal. 3:26-27; Rom. 6:3-4; Mt. 28:19; Mk 1:4-8; Mt. 3:13-17; John 1:26-34; 1 Cor. 10:1-4; Eph. 4:4-6; Eph. 5:25-27;, and others.
Whenever baptism (by water) is mentioned in the bible, it is ultimately linked with the Holy Spirit and the remission of sins. Either immediately before, during, or after. Even Ezekiel's OT prophecy follows this pattern:
Ezekiel 36:25-27 "I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will take out of your flesh the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances."
What does baptism do? according to Peter? "Even baptism doth also now save us."
BRENT
Quoting Dave "They repented at [eis] the preaching of Jonah." (Mt 12:41) "Repent and be baptised ... to [eis] the forgiveness of sins." (Acts 2:38) The preposition eis has the primary meaning "into" (as moving into a space). The preposition can also be used to mean "looking into" or "in view of," as can be clearly seen from the Matthew quote. The Ninevites did not repent "in order to achieve" Jonah's preaching; they did so "in view of" his preaching.
You have to prove that the word doesn't just mean "during," which works just as well. Either way, notice that no English translation translates "eis" as "because?" They all translate it as "at."
Quoting Dave " Same meaning applies to the Acts 2:38 passage.
In light of the weight of evidence against this, this statement is highly doubtful.
L.D.
The parallel is not "illegal" in Greek. One of the eight fundamental uses for "eis" is reference/respect. That is, it may be legitimately used to mean "with reference to" or "with repect to." Romans 4:20 comes to mind as one example of this. I believe the NASB actually uses the phrase "with respect to" as the translation of "eis" in that passage -- that means the translation team as a whole agree on that particular narrow usage in that place. "For" is obviously more ambiguous, and may show that translators cannot come to clear agreement in other passages, or that they prefer to let the wide semantic range of "for" appropriately substitute for the parallel wide semantic range of "eis."
BRENT
Romans 4:20 is the other verse that the Arndt and Gingrich lists as being "controversial." Since the word "eis" does not have the meaning of "with respect to" in its semantic domain, all other translators leave the word "eis" in Romans 4:20 (its the first word of that verse) as an untranslated particle (a phenomena that occurs frequently in Greek).
Your teaching on "eis," again violates the Protestant ethic. You don't use rare, difficult or controversial passages to interpret easy passages. And in the controversy over Romans 4:20 - most all agree (as evidenced by comparing English translations and Greek Lexicons) that "with respect to" doesn't work. So you are taking the controversially least likely scenerio of the word "eis" which does not need to be translated in Romans 4:20 - and applying it as "the law" for Acts 2:38. Again, this is ludicrous.
There are 1594 occurences of "eis," in the New Testament. Find at least two examples where "eis" means "in view of," or "because of," where there *is no controversy*. By the way, if it is no big deal to translate "eis" in Acts 2:38 as "in view of," or "because of," then why does no English translation do this?
L.D.
You are simply in error. Since you seem to have access to BAG, you might notice that paragraph 5 (in my edition) lists a number of situations in which they translate "eis" as "with reference to" or "with respect to." They include Romans 4:20 only in paragraph 6 as a questionable use of "eis" to mean "because of." If you will reread my post, I did not argue that "eis" meant "because of." BAG lists uses of "eis" to mean "with respect to" which include: Luke 14:35; 2 Timothy 2:21; 2 Timothy 4:11; Acts 17:21; Col. 1:12; Matthew 5:13; 2 Corinthians 9:8; Romans 8:28; 2 Corinthians 13:3; 2 Peter 1:17, Acts 2:25; Matthew 10:41. BAG does not list any of these as "controversial." Moreover, this is only a representative list, not an exhaustive list.
If you have access to Kittel's TDNT, you will find more references of this type in the chapter on "eis."
Further, I suggested to you already why I believe Acts 2:38 is translated "for" rather than "with respect to." I will repeat it here: "For" has a broad semantic range which nicely parallels "eis," and the meaning of "eis" is not clear from the syntactical context of Acts 2:38. You will notice that if "eis" is not translated "with respect to" in Acts 2:38, neither is it translated "to bring about," "to cause," "for the purpose of receiving" or anything else that would directly support your claim. In fact, "eis" is ambiguous in this context, so we must determine its meaning by considering the viable options (one of which I have defended as being "with respect to") in the course of our regular hermeneutical endeavors.
BRENT
Quoting L.D.: "Since you seem to have access to BAG, you might notice that paragraph 5 (in my edition) lists a number of situations in which they translate "eis" as "with reference to" or "with respect to." They include Romans 4:20 only in paragraph 6 as a questionable use of "eis" to mean "because of."
Let's do this differently - there is nothing ambiguous about Acts 2:38. Lexicons that dicuss ambiguous passages leave Acts 2:38 out. Translating this passage as "with respect to," forces the passage to be unnecessarily ambiguous. Seeing how the author of Acts used "eis" in an identical semantic situation in Acts 4:30 demonstrates that there is no reason to believe that he was using it any differently in the unambiguous Acts 2:38 passage. You must demonstrate why *using identical semantics* that the author meant something different in Acts 4:30 than what he did in Acts 2:38.
Quoting L.D.: "If you will reread my post, I did not argue that "eis" meant "because of."
You are correct. However, "because of" is the translation Protestants usually flock to, to avoid the theological implications of Acts 2:38. You evidently prefer to just think that Acts 2:38 is ambiguous (another way of avoiding the theological implications).
Quoting L.D.: "BAG lists uses of "eis" to mean "with respect to" which include: Luke 14:35; 2 Timothy 2:21; 2 Timothy 4:11; Acts 17:21; Col. 1:12; Matthew 5:13; 2 Corinthians 9:8; Romans 8:28; 2 Corinthians 13:3; 2 Peter 1:17, Acts 2:25; Matthew 10:41. BAG does not list any of these as "controversial." Moreover, this is only a representative list, not an exhaustive list."
Fantastic. Lets go over some of them:
Luke 14:35 It is fit neither [for] the land nor [for] the dunghill; men throw it away. He who has ears to hear, let him hear."
Lets replace the word in square brackets with "with respect to" or "in view of." The verse sounds kinda silly that way, huh? Now, let's replace [for] with with "to the ends of," which works just as well. Now lets apply that latter phrase to Acts 2:38 "be baptised [to the ends of] forgiveness of sins." Perfect!! NEXT.
2 Timothy 2:21 If any one purifies himself from what is ignoble, then he will be a vessel [for] noble use, consecrated and useful to the master of the house, ready for any good work.
Replacing this with "with respect to," is odd. We can more easily replace it with "for the purpose of." Map this latter choice onto Acts 2:38. Perfect. NEXT
2 Timothy 4:11 Luke alone is with me. Get Mark and bring him with you; for he is very useful [in] serving me.
From now on, I will call "with respect to" simply X. X here is again awkward. How about "for the purpose of." Good! Acts 2:38? NEXT
Acts 17:21 Now all the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there spent their time [in] nothing except telling or hearing something new.
X works here only in a pleonastic fashion. The pleonism is avoided by translating the word as "doing." NEXT
RSV Colossians 1:12 giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified us [to] share in the inheritance of the saints in light.
YLT Colossians 1:12 Giving thanks to the Father who did make us meet [for] the participation of the inheritance of the saints in the light,
Need I comment? NEXT
Matthew 5:13 "You are the salt of the earth; but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltness be restored? It is no longer good [for] anything except to be thrown out and trodden under foot by men.
Finally, something more interesting to work with. X works well here, but there is still a problem. If I were to interchange "for" with "with respect to," would that create any ambiguity of meaning in this verse? No, of course not. However, if I altered Acts 2:38 in such a fasion - the verse becomes *unnecessarily* ambiguous. The Jews being spoken to are so ingorant - the last thing they need is ambiguity. Peter would have been using words whose meaning was clear. Look again at Acts 4:30 where the grammar is identical to Acts 2:38. Case closed.
Quoting L.D.: "If you have access to Kittel's TDNT, you will find more references of this type in the chapter on "eis."
Yes, Kittel gives hundreds of definitions of "eis," and the definition "in view of" is the ONLY one of which he said such a meaning is "very occasional." Clearly, any Protestant who tries to force ambiguity on Acts 2:38 has A) an agenda and B) made a violation of the Protestant Sola Scriptura ethic: (viz) you don't use ambiguous passages (the "with respect to" passages) to interpret clear ones (Acts 2:38; 4:30).
Quoting L.D.: "Further, I suggested to you already why I believe Acts 2:38 is translated "for" rather than "with respect to." I will repeat it here: "For" has a broad semantic range which nicely parallels "eis," and the meaning of "eis" is not clear from the syntactical context of Acts 2:38.
Why was Peter being "contextually, syntactically unclear" with these Jews who are babes in Christ? Let's be serious - unless the grammar demands ambiquity - we go with the clear meaning. The plain one, such as in Acts 4:30.
Quoting L.D.: "You will notice that if "eis" is not translated "with respect to" in Acts 2:38, neither is it translated "to bring about," "to cause," "for the purpose of receiving" or anything else that would directly support your claim."
Acts 4:30 is the nail on the coffin.
Quoting L.D.: "In fact, "eis" is ambiguous in this context,
It is ambiguous only because Protestant theology needs it to be so.
Quoting L.D.: "so we must determine its meaning by considering the viable options (one of which I have defended as being "with respect to") in the course of our regular hermeneutical endeavors.
Viable options? What part of the Protestant ethic teaches "consider the 'viable options' and go with the *least* likely option?" (TNDT "very occasional")
Cased closed!