On Sun, 27 May 2001 20:05:33 -0700 (PDT) Glenn Blank 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 --- B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu