The Logic of Acts 2:38

dixonps at juno.com dixonps at juno.com
Mon May 28 10:43:07 EDT 2001




On Sun, 27 May 2001 20:05:33 -0700 (PDT) Glenn Blank
<glennblank at earthlink.net> writes:
>
> But the difficulty in this analysis is that Acts 2:38 is not written 
> in a logical syllogism, but rather in ordinary language, which 
> one would expect to operate according to principles of 
> communication theory.   Specifically, in the field of linguistic 
> pragmatics, one of Grice's Maxim's is the Maxim of Economy:
> that is, in order to intepret a message, a listener presumes 
> that his interlocutor will give him all of the information 
> necessary and *only* the information necessary.  So the 
> question becomes, if baptism is not a *necessary* condition
> for the remission of sins, why did Peter bother to mention it, 
> especially since the question prompting that answer seems
> a rather urgent plea:  "Men, brethren, what shall we do?"

Glenn:

In the reading of the first part of your post (which I snipped) I was
thrilled to see that someone was tracking with the logical analysis of
the passage.  You clearly understand the logic.  But, then I was greatly
dismayed to see you and others on this list so flippantly throw logic out
the window because, as you say, in Acts 2:38 we are dealing with
"ordinary language" where apparently logic does not apply.

I find this an incredible statement.  There is no evidence that Scripture
ever violates the rules of logic.  Yet, to affirm the negation here
(saying if a man does not both repent and be baptized then he can't be
saved and/or will not receive the Holy Spirit) is just such a violation. 
I find it amazing that so many assume it as a working hypothesis, then
try to explain it away or make it a dogma.

Besides, how does such an interpretation jive with the vast majority of
verses which teach that belief alone is sufficient for salvation (Acts
16:31, Jn 3:16, etc.)?  Scripture does affirm the negation for belief
many times (Jn 8:24, Mk 16:16b, 1 Jn 5:10, etc. ), but it never affirms
the negation for baptism (that is, if a man is not baptized (by water),
then he cannot be saved, nor that he cannot receive the Holy Spirit).

Scripture never affirms the negation of Acts 2:38 and to infer it is to
commit a logical fallacy.  Why do we have to go this route?

Paul Dixon



More information about the B-Greek mailing list