[b-greek] Re: The Logic of Acts 2:38

From: dixonps@juno.com
Date: Mon May 28 2001 - 10:43:07 EDT


On Sun, 27 May 2001 20:05:33 -0700 (PDT) Glenn Blank
<glennblank@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

---
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


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Feb 11 2002 - 18:40:28 EST