In article <690A37A5-BB75-180E-D414-FF2157044DCD@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, gary
says...
>"Ethan Metsger" <me@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>news:99F2DA83-99E8-AD7D-287F-2FFBF59BAEA7@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 21:40:08 -0400, gary <biblicist@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> 1 Timothy 1:16 "However, for this reason I obtained mercy, that in
>>> me first Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, as a pattern
>>> to those who are going to believe on Him for everlasting life."
>>> (NKJV)
>>> Again, we have the reversed order of what Ethan proposes.
>>> Paul says, believe on Him for everlasting life. Ethan's speculation is
>>> the opposite.
>>> Again how should God have written the above to fit Ethan's order?
>> If you wish to use the word "for" in this way, you should follow
>> the same exegesis in Acts 2.38, which says, "Be baptized for the
>> remission of sins." But you don't. Why?
>But I do. The word is eis, meaning UNTO.
The meaning of this word during the NT period is much wider than
this. That is why in both these passages, 1 Tim 1:16 and Acxts 2:38,
it is translated as 'for', not 'to' or 'unto'. Yet elsewhere it really
is translated as 'to', as in Acts 1:10.
>Why do you have a problem with baptism for the remission of sins, and
>have no problem with 1 John 1:9 "If we confess our sins, he is
>faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all
>unrighteousness."
>Here forgiveness follows confession. In Acts forgiveness follows baptism.
>There are two kinds of forgiveness, judicial and fellow****p.
You went into great detail describing a difference, but with no
Scriptural justification. I just do _not_ see this difference in
Scripture.
[snip]
--
-----------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a
moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org
for details about this group BEFORE you post.
)))
|
