| The Problem | | Acts 2:38--The "Causal eis" Debate | | Acts 2:32--The Burden for the Causal eis | | Acts 2:38--The analysis of the Causal Eis | | Acts 2:38 - Blood Guilt: Forgiveness or Justification? | | Acts 2:38 -- Blood Guilt: Corporate and Personal | | Acts 2:38 -- Blood Guilt: Resolution and Closure | | Acts 2:38 --A Covenant People and The Covenant | | Acts 2:38 --A Covenant People and The Church Age | | Acts 2:38 --A Covenant People: The Structure of Acts | | Acts 2:38 --A Covenant People: Escaping National Judgment | | Acts 2:38 -- Conclusion |
|
Salvation and Water Baptism
by
Ronald R. Shea, Th.M., J.D.
Acts 2:38
|
Causal "eis": The Question of Burden
The debate, however, does not end there. For there remains a question of how the argument was crafted. In law, there is something known as a "burden of proof." It is different in different cases. In criminal law, something must be proved "beyond a reasonable doubt." In civil cases, the plaintiff usually must prevail by either "the preponderance of the evidence" (anything over 50% in the mind of the jurors), or "clear and convincing evidence," (more than 50%, but less than "beyond a reasonable doubt.")
A lawyer who paid no attention to the burden could find himself ambushed, trying to prove, for example, that his client was "innocent" of the criminal charges, when in fact, it is the District Attorney who must carry the day, and demonstrate guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Lexical Burden
Lost in the smoke of the debate over the causal eis, the question of two separate burdens went unmentioned, as did one logical sophistry. The first burden in question was the burden needed to add the "causal" nuance to Greek lexicons. Did Mantey needed to demonstrate that the causal eis was "reasonably implied" in many usages? The "best" way of interpreting at least some usages? Or the "only" way of translating at least one usage. Since Marcus showed an alternative interpretation for each citation using "eis," it is arguable that Mantey failed to show that the "causal" nuance was ever "necessitated" per se. (More on this below, however.) On the other hand, a causal nuance in many Greek usages of "eis" is reasonable, and, as we shall see, implied on some level. More on this later, however, in the question of logical sophistry.
|
The Theological Burden
But the debate about whether or not a "causal eis" should be added to classical Greek lexicons skirts the question of the theological burden. What is the burden of proof for Acts 2:38 in establishing "baptism-as-necessary-for-salvation?" Though admittedly biased, I submit that when there are between one and two hundred verses that teach that salvation is a free gift by faith alone in Christ alone, the theological burden in the defense of grace is not to show that "eis" can not mean "for the purpose of," but rather, is simply to demonstrate that "eis" need not mean "for the purpose of" in that verse. The burden rests with those who would who would establish that baptism is required for salvation. They must demonstrate that such an interpretation is virtually demanded by this verse. The proper theological burden, therefore, is: "Can it be said of Acts 3:38 that there is no reasonable way of interpreting it other than to conclude that baptism in water is necessary for salvation?"
And if there are reasonable usages of "eis" in Acts 2:38 that do not require purpose (i.e. "repent and be baptized FOR THE PURPOSE OF the remission of sins."), than the "salvation-by-works" people have not carried their burden. Moreover, if there are passages similar to Acts 2:38 in which a "purpose" nuance is logically untenable, than whether one calls the alternative nuance a "causal" nuance or a "with-a-view-toward" nuance is quite irrelevant to the defense of grace. The necessity of baptism-for-salvation has been blown clear out of the water. |
|
Acts 2:32--The Burden for the Causal eis |
|
|
