Acts 2:38 and Baptismal Regeneration Refuted

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

Atwood

Senior Member
May 1, 2014
4,995
53
48
#61
If someone wishes to argue from Church History that the Church long taught that water baptism saves, do you realize that you are arguing from the idea that sprinkling babies (who do not believe in the Lord Jesus) saves? Do you really want to endorse that as the standard of truth?

Most of what passes for Church History is not Church History at all, but the history of the papacy and of the line of development that eventuated in the papacy (& patriarchies), a corrupt history of apostasy from NT truth.
 

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,142
612
113
69
Alabama
#62
If someone wishes to argue from Church History that the Church long taught that water baptism saves, do you realize that you are arguing from the idea that sprinkling babies (who do not believe in the Lord Jesus) saves? Do you really want to endorse that as the standard of truth?

Most of what passes for Church History is not Church History at all, but the history of the papacy and of the line of development that eventuated in the papacy (& patriarchies), a corrupt history of apostasy from NT truth.
I understand your point but I could not possibly care less what "Church history" taught or believed. Since scripture is equidistant to both time and culture this means that truth is not determined by either the history or the culture of the time in which it was written. Truth is found exclusively within the grammatical structure of the text and stands against both time an culture. Since sprinkling is not baptism and babies are not scriptural candidates for baptism, this is a rather moot argument.
 

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,142
612
113
69
Alabama
#63
ἕκαστος is not a "modifier," it is the pronoun subject of the verb βαπτισθήτω. ἕκαστος can be an adjective, but it is not an adjective here; it is a pronoun. ὑμῶν is grammatically a modifier of ἕκαστος.
Both stand together to qualify who was commanded to be baptized, therefore both act as modifiers.
 
Last edited:

mailmandan

Senior Member
Apr 7, 2014
25,001
13,008
113
58
#64
It is actually just as simple as this, grammatically, βαπτισθήτω cannot be separated as singular verb from its modifiers ἕκαστος ὑμῶν which are second person plural. The argument has been made that because βαπτισθήτω is third person and μετανοήσατε is second person this means Peter had to have been giving separate instruction to different groups with differing results. Beyond the obvious absurdity of this argument is the fact that ἕκαστος ὑμῶν renders the argument invalid. βαπτισθήτω can only be understood in connection with its second person plural modifiers. Therefore, all verbs under discussion are treated as second person imperatives both resulting int the same outcome - forgiveness of sin.
If the argument is absurd, then why don't ALL Greek scholars unanimously agree with you? Greek scholar A. T. Robertson makes the following statement: ". . This first. And be baptized every one of you (kai baptisthêtô hekastos hûmôn). Rather, "And let each one of you be baptized." Change of number from plural to singular and of person from second to third. This change marks a break in the thought here that the English translation does not preserve. The first thing to do is make a radical and complete change of heart and life. Then let each one be baptized after this change has taken place, and the act of baptism be performed "in the name of Jesus Christ" (en tôi onomati Iêsou Christou).

E Calvin Beisner - In short, the most precise English translation of the relevant clauses, arranging them to reflect the switches in person and number of the verbs, would be, “You (plural) repent for the forgiveness of your (plural) sins, and let each one (singular) of you be baptized (singular)….” Or, to adopt our Southern dialect again, “Y’all repent for the forgiveness of y’all’s sins, and let each one of you be baptized….” When I showed this translation to the late Julius Mantey, one of the foremost Greek grammarians of the twentieth century and co-author of A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (originally published in 1927), he approved and even signed his name next to it in the margin of my Greek New Testament. These arguments, lexical and grammatical, stand independently. Even if one rejects both lexical meanings of for, he still must face the grammatical argument, and even if he rejects the grammatical conclusion, he still must face the lexical argument. Does Acts 2:38 prove baptismal remission? No, it doesn’t even support it as part of a cumulative case. — E. Calvin Beisner

AT Robertson sums it up - One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not. My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission.(emphasis added) So I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received. Amen!


I am afraid I am unaquainted with Calvin Beisner but I do know that A. T. Robertson is considered one of the a greatest Grammarians of the Baptist community and since I do not regard myself as a Greek schollar, I would not presume to challenge his level of scholarship however, here is what one of Robertson's own coligues, Daniel Wallace has to say that I offer as a rebuttle of Robertson's position on Acts 2:38.

The NA 27 Greek text reads

The verb in the first clause is omitted but itis clear that Peter is speaking so the verb is then supplied. The verse then could be translated. Then Peter said to them "Repent each one of you and be baptized in the name of Jesus for the forgiveness of sins and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." There are two imperatives that are probably taken as commands and considering the conjunction should be taken together.
Daniel Wallace explains in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: It is possible that to a first-century Jewish audience (as well as to Peter), the idea of baptism might incorporate both the spiritual reality and the physical symbol (although only the reality remits sins). In other words, when one spoke of baptism, he usually meant both ideas—the reality and the ritual. Peter is shown to make the strong connection between these two in chapters 10 and 11. In 11:15-16 he recounts the conversion of Cornelius and friends, pointing out that at the point of their conversion they were baptized by the Holy Spirit. After he had seen this, he declared, “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit…” (10:47). The point seems to be that if they have had the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit via spiritual baptism, there ought to be a public testimony/acknowledgment via water baptism as well. This may not only explain Acts 2:38 (viz., that Peter spoke of both reality and picture, though only the reality removes sins), but also why the NT speaks of only baptized believers (as far as we can tell): Water baptism is not a cause of salvation, but a picture; and as such it serves both as a public acknowledgment (by those present) and a public confession (by the convert) that one has been Spirit baptized. It doesn't sound to me like Daniel Wallace is in agreement with you.

Barrett comments that baptism is an element of repentance.
I see water baptism as the fruit of repentance, not the essence of repentance. Just like good works in general are the fruit of faith, not the essence of faith. Those who teach salvation by works can't seem to grasp the distinction.

The difficulty is in how one should classify the preposition εἰς in this verse. Mantey clearly sought to propose a category and overextended himself in the process. As previously stated, I take the use of εἰς here in a purpose or result sense. The difficulty for me is relieved as I take into consideration how the early Christians did not separate repentance and baptism along with the result or purpose of repentance and baptism which had forgiveness as a corollary. To take this usage in a causal sense to me is unwarranted on the basis of the data that is presented. I have examined the general uses of this preposition syntactically. In addition, I have dealt with pertinent passages which share similar concepts and grammar. And finally I have dealt with the grammatical and conceptual issues as it relates to Acts 2:38.
In Matthew 3:11, we read - "I baptize you with water for "eis" repentance. Does this mean I baptize you with water "in order to obtain" repentance or "in regards to/on the basis of repentance?" Of course in order to obtain repentance does not make sense. You don't get baptized in order to repent but because you have repented. This fits perfectly with what AT Robertson said: "So I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received."

Greek scholars AT Robertson and Daniel Wallace have dealt with the grammatical and conceptual issues as it relates to Acts 2:38 as well and I agree with them. What they stated is in harmony with Acts 3:19; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31 and salvation through faith, not works, and that's good enough for me. Roman Catholics and Mormons (and others who teach salvation salvation by works) would agree with you.
 

mailmandan

Senior Member
Apr 7, 2014
25,001
13,008
113
58
#65
I presume by this then that work refers to something that man does, or have I misunderstood you?
Works are something that man does. Who accomplishes the work of getting water baptized? The person doing the baptizing and the person getting water baptized. God accomplishes the work of Spirit baptism (1 Corinthians 12:13), not to be confused with water baptism (Matthew 3:11; Acts 11:16).
 

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,142
612
113
69
Alabama
#66
Works are something that man does. Who accomplishes the work of getting water baptized? The person doing the baptizing and the person getting water baptized. God accomplishes the work of Spirit baptism (1 Corinthians 12:13), not to be confused with water baptism (Matthew 3:11; Acts 11:16).
Think about what you are saying. If work is defined as something man does and therefore can have no bearing on one's salvation what does this say about believing, repenting and confessing. These are all things that scripture tells us that one MUST DO in order to be saved. Why is baptism different?
 

mailmandan

Senior Member
Apr 7, 2014
25,001
13,008
113
58
#67
You are still not following the syntax. Grammatically, both repentance and baptism are linked to remission of sin by the simple conjunction καὶ.
Both Greek scholars AT Robertson and Daniel Wallace and others disagree with you and so do I.
.
No, that is not what was said. It was observed that the H.S. had been "poured out" on the Gentiles just as it was upon the Jews and this was confirmed in the fact that these Gentiles began to speak in tongues. When was the H.S. "poured out" on the Gentiles?
Peter clearly said "the gift of the Holy Spirit" in Acts 2:38 and Acts 10:45 but you won't accept that because of your bias.

Acts 10:44 says "the Spirit FELL upon them".
Acts 10:47 says "they RECEIVED the Holy Spirit".
Acts 11:17; 15:8,9 says God gave them the SAME gift of the Holy Spirit.
Acts 11:15 says the Spirit fell upon them.

That's all it means; fell-upon/poured-upon/gifted-to are just different ways of saying RECEIVED here.

This is why Peter then commanded them to be baptized.
The evidence is overwhelming that these Gentles BELIEVED, received the Holy Spirit and were saved and a part of the body of Christ. Certain Jews may have wanted to forbid them from being baptized because of their unacceptance of these Gentiles, but Peter clearly states that SURELY NO ONE CAN REFUSE. These Gentiles were clearly SAVED BEFORE WATER BAPTISM and the Holy Spirit was proof of this. So bring on the water for these saved converts.

If, as you claim, these had already been "Holy Spirit baptized" then why would Peter command them to be baptized in water since there is only one baptism, NOT TWO?
Peter clearly stated that they RECEIVED the Holy Spirit prior to water baptism (Acts 10:45,47). Referring back to the events that took place in Acts 10 - Acts 11:16 Then I remembered the word of the Lord, how He said, 'John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' 17 If therefore God gave them the same gift as He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, (BEFORE WATER BAPTISM) who was I that I could withstand God?"

The Bible does not teach that only ONE baptism exists. In (Matthew 3:11) we see 3 baptisms. I indeed BAPTIZE you with 1. WATER unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will BAPTIZE you with the 2. HOLY SPIRIT and 3. FIRE. You have misinterpreted Ephesians 4:5 by failing to make a category distinction. There is only one baptism that places us into the body of Christ and that is SPIRIT baptism, not water baptism. 1 Corinthians 12:13 - For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body--whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free--and have all been made to drink into one Spirit. *Also See John 3:5; 4:10,14; 7:37-39 on living water.

The incident that Paul uses to confirm this is Acts 2 yet there, belief is not mentioned at all in verse 38. It should be obvious to you that repentance and baptism were part of this belief structure. This is why he had commanded those in chapter 10 to be baptized.
Repentance is a "change of mind" and the new direction of this change of mind is faith in Christ for salvation. Two sides to the same coin. Where salvation is in view, when only repentance is mentioned, faith is implied or assumed. When only faith is mentioned, repentance is implied or assumed and already took place in the process of placing our faith in Christ for salvation. Where you have one you must have the other. Repentance and faith are inseparable in salvation. *Not so with baptism. You can repent and believe the gospel but NOT YET BE WATER BAPTIZED. Your belief is in baptism and not exclusively in Christ.

You are trying to disconnect baptism from this belief structure. Scripture does not do this.
Christ and His finished work of redemption is the object of our belief in receiving salvation, not water baptism. Salvation is signified but not procured in baptism. You are trying to "shoe horn" water baptism into salvation through faith. Faith is not baptism and faith precedes baptism and we are saved through faith in Christ. It's just that simple.

If this is your argument, you must be consistent and remove repentance form the belief structure since as you suggest only belief is required.
Repentance is not removed because if you don't repent "change our mind" then you won't believe and become saved. In Matthew 21:32, notice ..did not repent and believe Him. In Mark 1:15, notice - Repent and believe the gospel. Notice the order. So it's not belief only in that sense. Once you believe "apart from additions," then you are saved (Luke 8:12; John 3:18; Acts 10:43; Romans 1:16 etc..).

You are trying to pit one set of scriptures against another rather that trying to harmonize them.
Actually, I an harmonizing scripture with scripture. You are trying to pit Acts 2:38 against Acts 3:19; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31 and salvation through faith, not works.

The salvation process is much more involved than any one of the things. There is a variety of elements the Bible speaks of as being part of the salvation process.
So have been saved through faith (Ephesians 2:8) is an ongoing process or an event that took place in the past with ongoing results?

These include:
A. Faith. “For by grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God.”  Ephesians. 2:8.
Faith plus what? Simply faith.

B. Belief. “And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved, and your house.”  Acts 16:31.
Believe plus what? Simply Believe.

C. Confession. “For with the heart man believes unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.”  Romans 10:10.
Here is where your church of Christ colors are really beginning to show. This verse has caused much confusion in the church of Christ. You need to start with verse 8. Romans 10:8 - But what does it say? "The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart" (together) that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, (notice the reverse order from verse 9 to verse 10) 9 that if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. Confess/believe; believe/confess. Not two separate steps to salvation, but chronologically together. It's not believe today then finally confess next week. Also notice that believes unto righteousness/confession is made unto salvation BEFORE water baptism in your list of steps.

D. Baptism. “The like figure unto which even baptism does also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”  1Peter 3:2.
1 Peter 3:21 tells us that baptism now saves you, yet when Peter uses this phrase he continues in the same sentence to explain exactly what he means by it. He says that baptism now saves you-not the removal of dirt from the flesh (that is, not as an outward, physical act which washes dirt from the body--that is not the part which saves you), "but an appeal to God for a good conscience" (that is, as an inward, spiritual transaction between God and the individual, a transaction that is symbolized by the outward ceremony of water baptism). Just as the eight people in the ark were "saved THROUGH water" as they were IN THE ARK. They were not literally saved "by" the water. Hebrews 11:7 is clear on this point (..built an ARK for the SAVING of his household). NOTE: The context reveals that ONLY the righteous (Noah and his family) were DRY and therefore SAFE. In contrast, ONLY THE WICKED IN NOAH'S DAY CAME IN CONTACT WITH THE WATER AND THEY ALL PERISHED.

E. Hope. “For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man sees, why does he yet hope for? But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.”  Romans 8:24-25.
Hope is another aspect of faith, not an additional requirement to become saved after faith. If we have saving faith in Christ then we have this hope. Faith is the substance of things HOPED for... (Hebrews 11:1). So that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the HOPE of eternal life (Titus 3:7). You are making this out to be a lot more complicated than it really is.

F. Grace. “For by grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God.” Ephesians. 2:8
Grace is God's part and faith is man's part.

G. The gospel. “Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also you have received, and in which you stand; By which also you are saved, if you keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless you have believed in vain.”  1Corinthians. 15:1-2.
The gospel is the "good news" of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ (1 Corinthians 15:1-4) and is the power of God unto salvation for everyone who BELIEVES.. (Romans 1:16). To believe in vain is to believe without cause or without effect, to no purpose. If, as some are saying in Corinth, there is no resurrection, then faith is vain and worthless (vs. 14). The people who fail to hold fast to the word (the gospel) that Paul preached in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, demonstrat that they "believed in vain" (did not truly believe). In Matthew 6:7, we read - And when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do. For they think that they will be heard for their many words. In Matthew 15:9, we read - And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.

H. And even fear. “and others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.” Jude 23. It is not intended that anyone simply choose one of these elements and disregard the others. One cannot for instance, choose to only believe without any regard for confessing Jesus as Lord and Christ and declare himself saved. One cannot simply choose to be baptized and disregard faith and declare himself saved. Jesus said, “man lives by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.”  Matthew 4:4.
Genuine faith is not without fear and reverence to the Lord. Faith is not without confession. They are together chronologically (Romans 10:8). Unfortunately, many people get water baptized in various churches that have perverted the gospel but don't have genuine saving faith in Christ. I use to be one of them!

Faith, belief, confession, baptism, hope, grace and fear all have their divinely appointed function within the framework of salvation. To disregard or marginalize the importance of any one these elements represents a disregard for what God tells us in scripture. Any one of these alone will save no one. The exercise of all of them will save anyone. God has ordained all of these things to work together so man can be reconciled to God. We must remember that God offers us salvation on HIS terms, not ours. If we choose to deviate from the terms and conditions God has provided we can not hope to receive the benefits that are connected to them.
Actually faith/belief are not two separate elements. The Greek words for "pistis" and "pisteuo" are two forms of the same word. "Pistis" is the noun form, "pisteuo" is the verb form. You left out repentance in your check list here and I also wanted to point out to you that repentance actually precedes saving faith in Christ. You reverse the order of repentance/faith in receiving salvation. I'll get more into that later. I have to get ready for work.
 

mailmandan

Senior Member
Apr 7, 2014
25,001
13,008
113
58
#68
Think about what you are saying. If work is defined as something man does and therefore can have no bearing on one's salvation what does this say about believing, repenting and confessing. These are all things that scripture tells us that one MUST DO in order to be saved. Why is baptism different?
Believing is clearly not a work that merits our salvation. Through believing, we are completely trusting in "Another's work," (Christ's finished work of redemption). Repenting is not a work that merits our salvation either. We must first repent "change our mind" before we can believe (trust in Christ's finished work of redemption) to save us. Through repentance/faith, Christ is still the object of our complete trust in receiving salvation. Belief and confession are together (Romans 10:8). Baptism is a work which follows saving faith in Christ and if it's necessary for salvation, that would add merit on our part to salvation because then we would be saved through Christ's finished work of redemption "plus our baptism." Baptism is different because faith is not baptism and faith precedes baptism and we are saved through faith. It's just that simple. If our faith is in baptism or any other good work which follows faith, then our faith is not exclusively in Christ for salvation.
 
Jan 27, 2013
4,769
18
0
#69
Acts 2:38 has been used by various individuals who claim that forgiveness of sins is conveyed at the point of baptism rather than at the point of belief.

This view has been taught by various groups but the one I am most familiar with is the Campbellite faction of Church of Christ. I became aware of this teaching about a month ago after a Church of Christ member discussed it with me. Since then I've done a lot of research on their teachings in order to formulate a response to them. I am thinking that others will benefit from sharing this information as I am learning.

Acts 2:38English Standard Version (ESV)[SUP]38 [/SUP]And Peter said to them, [SUP](A)[/SUP]“Repent and [SUP](B)[/SUP]be baptized every one of you [SUP](C)[/SUP]in the name of Jesus Christ [SUP](D)[/SUP]for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive [SUP](E)[/SUP]the gift of the Holy Spirit.

In the COC Campbellite faction view, this verse says that you are not forgiven of your sins until you are baptized by water.

For those of us who believe in salvation by grace through faith alone, the orthodox teaching is that we are saved when we respond to the gospel message and place our faith in Jesus Christ for salvation. Works, including baptism, are a result of our salvation, but they do not contribute to our salvation in any way...they are the fruits of our salvation.

So, how do we resolve the above Scripture, which seems to indicate that baptism is the point where sins are forgiven?

The Greek word that was translated "for" in this Scripture is eis. A legitimate translation of this word is "because of". We are baptized "because of" the remission of sin.


Consider the following Scriptures:

Luke 5:13-14 Luke 5:13-14[SUP]13 [/SUP]And Jesus[SUP][a][/SUP] stretched out his hand and touched him, saying, “I will; be clean.” And immediately the leprosy left him. [SUP]14 [/SUP]And he charged him [SUP](A)[/SUP]to tell no one, but “go and show [SUP](B)[/SUP]yourself to the priest, and [SUP](C)[/SUP]make an offering for your cleansing, as Moses commanded, [SUP](D)[/SUP]for a proof to them.”

Now, the word "for" in "make an offering for your cleansing" is the same word eis as in the phrase "baptized for the remission of sins in Acts 2:38. Was the leper cleansed prior to making the offering, or before it? Verse 13 plainly says that he was cleansed by Jesus before the offering was made. The offering was merely a public acknowledgement of this cleansing.

Baptism is exactly the same. Baptism is a public testimony that our sins have been forgiven when we placed our faith in Christ. We are already forgiven prior to the ceremony, though. Baptism is an important act of obedience, but it comes AFTER salvation, not to OBTAIN salvation. It identifies us with Christ as our Savior, and we are proclaiming our intention to live in newness of life. We are demonstrating our unity with Him through a reenactment of his death, burial, and resurrection in a symbolic way through the waters of baptism. But, baptism does not save us as baptismal regenerationists claim.
all the people at pentecost were jewish.

was act 2 talking to a jew or a gentile.
acts 10 gentile, ware was repent from a law of moses, leads to acts 15.
28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also,30 since God is one---who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith romans 3
 

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,142
612
113
69
Alabama
#70
=mailmandan;1673911]If the argument is absurd, then why don't ALL Greek scholars unanimously agree with you?
If the argument is NOT absurd, then why don't ALL Greek scholars unanimously agree with you?

Greek scholar A. T. Robertson makes the following statement: ". . This first. And be baptized every one of you (kai baptisthêtô hekastos hûmôn). Rather, "And let each one of you be baptized." Change of number from plural to singular and of person from second to third. This change marks a break in the thought here that the English translation does not preserve. The first thing to do is make a radical and complete change of heart and life. Then let each one be baptized after this change has taken place, and the act of baptism be performed "in the name of Jesus Christ" (en tôi onomati Iêsou Christou).
If this is Robertson's argument surely you can see through this. What he is doing is attempting to change the word order suggesting that this will change the meaning. First of all, changing the word order is textual manipulation. The word order is fixed and is compatible to the English syntax in this instance. This also shows that he feels changing the word order is necessary in order to support his soteriology. Second, even if the word order is changed this does not change the function of "each one of you." This is still second person pl linked to the imperative. Now, like I have said, I am no Greek scholar and I am certainly not worthy to even be in the same room with someone of Robertson's ability but I find it hard to believe that any man of Robertson's expertise in Greek would go to such lengths to manipulate the grammar.

E Calvin Beisner - In short, the most precise English translation of the relevant clauses, arranging them to reflect the switches in person and number of the verbs, would be, “You (plural) repent for the forgiveness of your (plural) sins, and let each one (singular) of you be baptized (singular)….” Or, to adopt our Southern dialect again, “Y’all repent for the forgiveness of y’all’s sins, and let each one of you be baptized….” When I showed this translation to the late Julius Mantey, one of the foremost Greek grammarians of the twentieth century and co-author of A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (originally published in 1927), he approved and even signed his name next to it in the margin of my Greek New Testament. These arguments, lexical and grammatical, stand independently. Even if one rejects both lexical meanings of for, he still must face the grammatical argument, and even if he rejects the grammatical conclusion, he still must face the lexical argument. Does Acts 2:38 prove baptismal remission? No, it doesn’t even support it as part of a cumulative case. — E. Calvin Beisner
Beisner is doing the same think Robertson is doing. He knows what the Greek is saying and he does not like what it says so he attempts to justify manipulating the grammar. This is nothing less than dishonest.

AT Robertson sums it up - One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not. My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission.(emphasis added) So I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received. Amen!
And I disagree.

Daniel Wallace explains in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: It is possible that to a first-century Jewish audience (as well as to Peter), the idea of baptism might incorporate both the spiritual reality and the physical symbol (although only the reality remits sins). In other words, when one spoke of baptism, he usually meant both ideas—the reality and the ritual. Peter is shown to make the strong connection between these two in chapters 10 and 11. In 11:15-16 he recounts the conversion of Cornelius and friends, pointing out that at the point of their conversion they were baptized by the Holy Spirit. After he had seen this, he declared, “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit…” (10:47). The point seems to be that if they have had the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit via spiritual baptism, there ought to be a public testimony/acknowledgment via water baptism as well. This may not only explain Acts 2:38 (viz., that Peter spoke of both reality and picture, though only the reality removes sins), but also why the NT speaks of only baptized believers (as far as we can tell): Water baptism is not a cause of salvation, but a picture; and as such it serves both as a public acknowledgment (by those present) and a public confession (by the convert) that one has been Spirit baptized. It doesn't sound to me like Daniel Wallace is in agreement with you.
Wallace is making an theological argument here not a grammatical one. Notice what Wallace says, "if they have had", "This may...explain". Wallace is not a promoter of baptism for the remission of sin. This is why I found his defense on Acts 2:38 most interesting. Wallace is correct however, Baptism is not the cause of salvation and baptism is indeed a picture or as I prefer to call it a revealed symbol. This does not however mean that it is not linked to the process of salvation. Acts 2:38 could not be clearer on this point. Paul also defends this in Romans 6.

In Matthew 3:11, we read - "I baptize you with water for "eis" repentance. Does this mean I baptize you with water "in order to obtain" repentance or "in regards to/on the basis of repentance?" Of course in order to obtain repentance does not make sense. You don't get baptized in order to repent but because you have repented. This fits perfectly with what AT Robertson said: "So I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received."
"eis" NEVER, NEVER, NEVER points backward, always forward.

Greek scholars AT Robertson and Daniel Wallace have dealt with the grammatical and conceptual issues as it relates to Acts 2:38 as well and I agree with them. What they stated is in harmony with Acts 3:19; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31 and salvation through faith, not works, and that's good enough for me. Roman Catholics and Mormons (and others who teach salvation salvation by works) would agree with you.
Here is an article written by the renoun Greek scholar and translator Hugo Mccord.

The Greek preposition EIS is always prospective (looking forward), never retrospective (looking back) which means that forgiveness follows Baptism...EIS shows movement "into" and it always does. In Acts 2:38 repentance and baptism are INTO forgiveness of sins.

That the direction of the preposition EIS is always prospective is the opinion of Greek scholarship. Consider the following:
"In 1996, Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, an associate professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, published his new book, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan). It is a scholarly volume of more than 800 pages. In his discussion of eis, Wallace lists five uses of the preposition, and among them "causal" is conspicuously missing!

Prof. Wallace explains the absence. He says that an "interesting discussion over the force of eis took place several years ago, especially in relation to Acts 2:38." He references the position of J.R. Mantey, that "eis could be used causally" in this passage. Wallace mentions that Mantey was taken to task by another scholar, Ralph Marcus (Marcus, Journal of Biblical Literature, 70 [1952] 129-30; 71 [1953] 44). These two men engaged in what Dr. Wallace called a "blow-by-blow" encounter. When the smoke had cleared, the Dallas professor concedes, "Marcus ably demonstrated that the linguistic evidence for a causal eis fell short of proof" (370).
Though Wallace did not come to believe that baptism is necessary for salvation, he clearly refutes the causal "because of" meaning in Acts 2:38.[SUP]1[/SUP]

In Acts 2:38 EIS is not looking back at one's forgiveness and in Matthew 12:41 it is not looking back at Jonah's preaching. The reason I address the Mt. 12 usage is because it's the one place that Baptist turn to as "proof" that EIS can have a causal, or retrospective meaning. More on this in a second. Since the preposition EIS is ALWAYS prospective, at baptism one is looking forward to being forgiven and Nineveh was looking forward so it wouldn't be destroyed. Nineveh repented "with a view to" (prospective) avoiding being overthrown in forty days (Jonah 3:2,3). Jonah was preaching salvation, which he resisted doing at first, and Nineveh understood and turned to God with ashes and sackcloth.

So as to remove the necessity of Baptism, many of our Baptist friends have taken to explaining Acts 2:38 in ways never depicted in a single translation of the Bible. That's significant! They say that the Greek preposition EIS, that says, "repent and let each of you be baptized FOR the remission of sins" may have a causal (read retrospective "because of") meaning which would support their position that salvation precedes baptism (regretably for them, if this were true, salvation would also precede repentance since they argue that only 'belief' is necessary). In their view, one's baptism looks back to one's first point of salvation. However, the meaning of EIS, translated in the English as "for" never has a causal, retrospective meaning.


Now, I am sure we can continue to post arguments and counter arguments from a wide variety of reputable scholars. Personally I am not interested in doing this. What I would suggest is that you go to the bgreek web site and pose this question to some of the athiest Greek scholar on that site and present to them the same argument you presented to me on Acts 2:38 and see how they read this verse. The reason I use athiest scholars from time to time is because they have no theological ax to grind. The only thing that concerns them is their reputation as a scholar. They are not in the least interested in defending some theological or soteriological position. All they are interested in is getting the translation right.
 
Last edited:

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,142
612
113
69
Alabama
#71
Believing is clearly not a work that merits our salvation. Through believing, we are completely trusting in "Another's work," (Christ's finished work of redemption). Repenting is not a work that merits our salvation either. We must first repent "change our mind" before we can believe (trust in Christ's finished work of redemption) to save us.
Baptism is not a work that merits salvation any more than repentance yet, Peter was very emphatic when he says that "Baptism now saves you."

Through repentance/faith, Christ is still the object of our complete trust in receiving salvation. Belief and confession are together (Romans 10:8). Baptism is a work which follows saving faith in Christ and if it's necessary for salvation, that would add merit on our part to salvation because then we would be saved through Christ's finished work of redemption "plus our baptism." Baptism is different because faith is not baptism and faith precedes baptism and we are saved through faith. It's just that simple. If our faith is in baptism or any other good work which follows faith, then our faith is not exclusively in Christ for salvation.
Paul also describes in baptism is still Christ is still the object of our complete trust in receiving salvation. You are really missing the point. By your own definition belief, repentance, confession, and baptism are all works. You are not answering, if work is something that man does (and indeed man is not saved by works) what makes baptism different from the others?
There is a variety of elements the Bible speaks of as being part of the salvation process. These include:
A. Faith. “For by grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God.”  Ephesians. 2:8.
B. Belief. “And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved, and your house.”  Acts 16:31.
C. Confession. “For with the heart man believes unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.”  Romans 10:10.
D. Baptism. “The like figure unto which even baptism does also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”  1Peter 3:2.
E. Hope. “For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man sees, why does he yet hope for? But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.”  Romans 8:24-25.
F. Grace. “For by grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God.” Ephesians. 2:8
G. The gospel. “Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also you have received, and in which you stand; By which also you are saved, if you keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless you have believed in vain.”  1Corinthians. 15:1-2.
H. And even fear. “and others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.” Jude 23. It is not intended that anyone simply choose one of these elements and disregard the others. One cannot for instance, choose to only believe without any regard for confessing Jesus as Lord and Christ and declare himself saved. One cannot simply choose to be baptized and disregard faith and declare himself saved. Jesus said, “man lives by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.”  Matthew 4:4.


To single out baptism from this noble list and suggest that it is has no part in our salvation is somewhat disingenuous. Faith, belief, confession, baptism, hope, grace and fear all have their divinely appointed function within the framework of salvation. To disregard or marginalize the importance of any one these elements represents a disregard for what God tells us in scripture. Any one of these alone will save no one. The exercise of all of them will save anyone. God has ordained all of these things to work together so man can be reconciled to God.We must remember that God offers us salvation on HIS terms, not ours. If we choose to deviate from the terms and conditions God has provided we can not hope to receive the benefits that are connected to them.
 
Mar 12, 2014
6,433
29
0
#72
If this is Robertson's argument surely you can see through this. What he is doing is attempting to change the word order suggesting that this will change the meaning. First of all, changing the word order is textual manipulation. The word order is fixed and is compatible to the English syntax in this instance. This also shows that he feels changing the word order is necessary in order to support his soteriology. Second, even if the word order is changed this does not change the function of "each one of you." This is still second person pl linked to the imperative. Now, like I have said, I am no Greek scholar and I am certainly not worthy to even be in the same room with someone of Robertson's ability but I find it hard to believe that any man of Robertson's expertise in Greek would go to such lengths to manipulate the grammar.
I've also always found it interesting Robertson had no problem understanding "eis" in Matt 26:28 means "for, yet in Acts 2:38, that uses the same "remission of sins" phrase as Mt 26:28, Robertson is not so sure what "eis" means, if it means "for" or "because". So Robertson was willing to sacrifice Greek scholarship for his personal theological bias.
 

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,142
612
113
69
Alabama
#73
Both Greek scholars AT Robertson and Daniel Wallace and others disagree with you and so do I. Peter clearly said "the gift of the Holy Spirit" in Acts 2:38 and Acts 10:45 but you won't accept that because of your bias.

Acts 10:44 says "the Spirit FELL upon them".
Acts 10:47 says "they RECEIVED the Holy Spirit".
Acts 11:17; 15:8,9 says God gave them the SAME gift of the Holy Spirit.
Acts 11:15 says the Spirit fell upon them.

That's all it means; fell-upon/poured-upon/gifted-to are just different ways of saying RECEIVED here.
You are still misrepresenting this text. The text says. "the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also." He does NOT say "upon this house or upon Cornelius" but upon the Gentiles. In other words, upon ALL Gentiles. This was accomplished in Acts 2 when the H.S. was "poured out upon ALL mankind." There is a reason Paul used the lame terminology to describe this event. The fact that the H.S. "fell on them" meaning those present and not on ALL Gentiles, resulting in their speaking in tongues, served as poof of what Peter said. "Fell on" and "poured out" have far different meaning and different implications.

The evidence is overwhelming that these Gentles BELIEVED, received the Holy Spirit and were saved and a part of the body of Christ. Certain Jews may have wanted to forbid them from being baptized because of their unacceptance of these Gentiles, but Peter clearly states that SURELY NO ONE CAN REFUSE. These Gentiles were clearly SAVED BEFORE WATER BAPTISM and the Holy Spirit was proof of this. So bring on the water for these saved converts. Peter clearly stated that they RECEIVED the Holy Spirit prior to water baptism (Acts 10:45,47). Referring back to the events that took place in Acts 10 - Acts 11:16 Then I remembered the word of the Lord, how He said, 'John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' 17 If therefore God gave them the same gift as He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, (BEFORE WATER BAPTISM) who was I that I could withstand God?"
No, what Peter was confirming was that the Gentiles had received the H.S. just as the Jews had when the H.S. was poured out on all mankind. This fact meant that these could not be forbidden to be baptized.

The Bible does not teach that only ONE baptism exists. In (Matthew 3:11) we see 3 baptisms. I indeed BAPTIZE you with 1. WATER unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will BAPTIZE you with the 2. HOLY SPIRIT and 3. FIRE. You have misinterpreted Ephesians 4:5 by failing to make a category distinction. There is only one baptism that places us into the body of Christ and that is SPIRIT baptism, not water baptism. 1 Corinthians 12:13 - For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body--whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free--and have all been made to drink into one Spirit. *Also See John 3:5; 4:10,14; 7:37-39 on living water.
Paul tells us in Eph. 4:5 that there is only "one baptism." Since there is only one baptism, why did the apostles continue to baptize in water if he meant that the one baptism was H.S. baptism?

Repentance is a "change of mind" and the new direction of this change of mind is faith in Christ for salvation. Two sides to the same coin. Where salvation is in view, when only repentance is mentioned, faith is implied or assumed. When only faith is mentioned, repentance is implied or assumed and already took place in the process of placing our faith in Christ for salvation. Where you have one you must have the other. Repentance and faith are inseparable in salvation. *Not so with baptism. You can repent and believe the gospel but NOT YET BE WATER BAPTIZED. Your belief is in baptism and not exclusively in Christ.
Then why can you not see in those conversion example where only one element, such as belief is mention ALL the others, including baptism are implied. If not, why not?
 

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,142
612
113
69
Alabama
#74
Christ and His finished work of redemption is the object of our belief in receiving salvation, not water baptism. Salvation is signified but not procured in baptism. You are trying to "shoe horn" water baptism into salvation through faith. Faith is not baptism and faith precedes baptism and we are saved through faith in Christ. It's just that simple.
If you say this about baptism, you also have to say this about repentance, confession and belief.

Repentance is not removed because if you don't repent "change our mind" then you won't believe and become saved. In Matthew 21:32, notice ..did not repent and believe Him. In Mark 1:15, notice - Repent and believe the gospel. Notice the order. So it's not belief only in that sense. Once you believe "apart from additions," then you are saved (Luke 8:12; John 3:18; Acts 10:43; Romans 1:16 etc..).
You are confusing the biblical picture of belief with a simple mental ascension to a fact. Biblical belief is not merely accepting an intellectual fact or truth. Scripture always presents true belief as a conduct of life. In other words, belief is a compossition of all of our thought speech and behavior.
Here is where your church of Christ colors are really beginning to show. This verse has caused much confusion in the church of Christ. You need to start with verse 8. Romans 10:8 - But what does it say? "The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart" (together) that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, (notice the reverse order from verse 9 to verse 10) 9 that if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. Confess/believe; believe/confess. Not two separate steps to salvation, but chronologically together. It's not believe today then finally confess next week. Also notice that believes unto righteousness/confession is made unto salvation BEFORE water baptism in your list of steps. [/QUOTE]
Again, you are missing the point. These are two separat actions that are part of a single process.

1 Peter 3:21 tells us that baptism now saves you, yet when Peter uses this phrase he continues in the same sentence to explain exactly what he means by it. He says that baptism now saves you-not the removal of dirt from the flesh (that is, not as an outward, physical act which washes dirt from the body--that is not the part which saves you), "but an appeal to God for a good conscience" (that is, as an inward, spiritual transaction between God and the individual, a transaction that is symbolized by the outward ceremony of water baptism). Just as the eight people in the ark were "saved THROUGH water" as they were IN THE ARK. They were not literally saved "by" the water. Hebrews 11:7 is clear on this point (..built an ARK for the SAVING of his household). NOTE: The context reveals that ONLY the righteous (Noah and his family) were DRY and therefore SAFE. In contrast, ONLY THE WICKED IN NOAH'S DAY CAME IN CONTACT WITH THE WATER AND THEY ALL PERISHED.
Peter is not saying that our baptism is not water baptism. What he is trying to get you to see is that the PURPOSE of baptism in water is not for the purpose of removing the dirt from your body. He is saying that water baptism is an appeal to God for a clean conscience.

Hope is another aspect of faith, not an additional requirement to become saved after faith. If we have saving faith in Christ then we have this hope. Faith is the substance of things HOPED for... (Hebrews 11:1). So that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the HOPE of eternal life (Titus 3:7). You are making this out to be a lot more complicated than it really is.
Then why can you not say this about baptism????

Grace is God's part and faith is man's part.
So is belief, repentance, confession, and baptism.

The gospel is the "good news" of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ (1 Corinthians 15:1-4) and is the power of God unto salvation for everyone who BELIEVES.. (Romans 1:16). To believe in vain is to believe without cause or without effect, to no purpose. If, as some are saying in Corinth, there is no resurrection, then faith is vain and worthless (vs. 14). The people who fail to hold fast to the word (the gospel) that Paul preached in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, demonstrat that they "believed in vain" (did not truly believe). In Matthew 6:7, we read - And when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do. For they think that they will be heard for their many words. In Matthew 15:9, we read - And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.
Again, you must understand what belief is as it is present in scripture, not as a mere mental acceptance of a fact or a truth.

Genuine faith is not without fear and reverence to the Lord. Faith is not without confession. They are together chronologically (Romans 10:8). Unfortunately, many people get water baptized in various churches that have perverted the gospel but don't have genuine saving faith in Christ. I use to be one of them!
I agree 100%

Actually faith/belief are not two separate elements. The Greek words for "pistis" and "pisteuo" are two forms of the same word. "Pistis" is the noun form, "pisteuo" is the verb form.
True

You left out repentance in your check list here and I also wanted to point out to you that repentance actually precedes saving faith in Christ. You reverse the order of repentance/faith in receiving salvation. I'll get more into that later. I have to get ready for work.
It was not left out as a simple act of omission. I only left it out because there is no passage that actually says that "repentance saves you" as is represented by the other examples. This of course does not minimize its partnership in the salvation process.
 
Last edited:

mailmandan

Senior Member
Apr 7, 2014
25,001
13,008
113
58
#76
If the argument is NOT absurd, then why don't ALL Greek scholars unanimously agree with you?
Apparently then it's not absurd either way, since not all Greek scholars are in agreement, eh? But what is the truth and does it harmonize with the rest of scripture? Once again, as AT Robertson summed it up - One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not. My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission. So I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received.

If this is Robertson's argument surely you can see through this. What he is doing is attempting to change the word order suggesting that this will change the meaning. First of all, changing the word order is textual manipulation. The word order is fixed and is compatible to the English syntax in this instance.
The meaning MUST harmonize with Acts 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9 etc.. and your interpretation does not. You manipulated these passages of scripture in order to force them to "conform" to your biased interpretation of Acts 2:38. Why should I believe you over AT Robertson or Daniel Wallace or E Calvin Beisner?

This also shows that he feels changing the word order is necessary in order to support his soteriology. Second, even if the word order is changed this does not change the function of "each one of you." This is still second person pl linked to the imperative. Now, like I have said, I am no Greek scholar and I am certainly not worthy to even be in the same room with someone of Robertson's ability but I find it hard to believe that any man of Robertson's expertise in Greek would go to such lengths to manipulate the grammar.
Like you said, you are no Greek scholar and am certainly not worthy to even be in the same room with someone of Robertson's ability, so why should I listen to you over him? You went to great lengths to manipulate Acts 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9 etc..

Beisner is doing the same think Robertson is doing. He knows what the Greek is saying and he does not like what it says so he attempts to justify manipulating the grammar. This is nothing less than dishonest.
They would probably say the same thing about you and about how you manipulated Acts 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9.

And I disagree.
His argument is in harmony with Acts 3:19; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31 and salvation through faith, not works, and your argument is not so I disagree with you and agree with Robertson. He knows how to harmonize scripture with scripture.

Wallace is making an theological argument here not a grammatical one. Notice what Wallace says, "if they have had", "This may...explain". Wallace is not a promoter of baptism for the remission of sin.
His argument is in harmony with Acts 3:19; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31 and salvation through faith, not works, so I agree with Wallace.

Wallace is correct however, Baptism is not the cause of salvation and baptism is indeed a picture or as I prefer to call it a revealed symbol.
Amen! That's more than I've heard most people who attend the church of Christ admit to! :)

This does not however mean that it is not linked to the process of salvation.
How is have been saved through faith (Ephesians 2:8) a process? Salvation is signified, yet nor procured in baptism.

Acts 2:38 could not be clearer on this point. Paul also defends this in Romans 6.
Paul understands that water baptism is the picture and not the reality. Romans 6:3-4 "on the surface" appears to support the idea that baptism is the instrumental cause of salvation. However, even here baptism could be understood as the sign or symbol of salvation. It is not unusual in scripture to call the reality by the name of its sign. Thus, for example, Paul says that all Christians are circumcised (even though one may not be physically circumcised) - meaning that they possess what circumcision signifies (Philippians 3:3). Using this kind of language, Paul can speak of the great reality of the believers’ spiritual union with Christ, and the benefits which flow from that union, in terms of baptism, its sign or symbol. We are forced to give this interpretation by the context. Before mentioning baptism in chapter 6, Paul had repeatedly emphasized that FAITH, not baptism is the instrumental cause of salvation/justification (Romans 1:16; 3:22-30; 4:4-6, 13; 5:1). That is when the old man was put to death and united in the likeness of His death, which water baptism symbolizes and pictures. Righteousness is “imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised up because of our justification” (Romans 4:24,25). Since believers receive the benefits of Christ’s death and resurrection (justification), and that through faith, believers must be spiritually united to Him (delivered and raised up with Him). If baptism is taken as the instrumental cause, then Paul contradicts what he had established before, namely that justification is by FAITH, not baptism. *Hermeneutics.

"eis" NEVER, NEVER, NEVER points backward, always forward.
That's not true.

In Liddell & Scott, Greek-English Lexicon, the standard lexicon for classical Greek, we find the following uses of the word:Of place ("into," "to," less commonly "before," "upon," "for")
Of time ("up to," "until," "near," "for," "with")
To express measure or limit ("as far as," "as much as," "so far as," "about," "by")
To express relation ("towards," "in regard to")

Of an end or limit, including the idea of purpose or object ("in," "into," "for," "to the purpose")
In Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, the standard lexicon for Biblical Greek and early Christian writings, we find the following meanings of the word:

Of place ("into," "in," "toward," "to," "among," "near," "to," "on," "toward")
Of time ("to," "until," "for," "on," "in," "for," "throughout")
To indicate degree ("to," "completely," "fully")
To indicate the goal, including to show the result or purpose ("unto," "to," "against," "in," "for," "into," "to," "so that," "in order to," "for")
To denote reference to a person or thing ("for," "to," "with respect" or "reference to")

In Matthew 3:11, we read - "I baptize you with water for "eis" repentance. Is this baptism for "in order to obtain" repentance or "in regards to/on the basis of repentance?" You don't get baptized without first repenting. Getting baptized in order to obtain repentance is ridiculous! Just like you don't baptize unbelievers in order to make them believers, but because they are believers.

Here is an article written by the renoun Greek scholar and translator Hugo Mccord.

The Greek preposition EIS is always prospective (looking forward), never retrospective (looking back) which means that forgiveness follows Baptism...EIS shows movement "into" and it always does. In Acts 2:38 repentance and baptism are INTO forgiveness of sins.
Nice try but why should I listen to Hugo Mccord? He is wrong right out of the starting gate. EIS is not ALWAYS looking backward, as demonstrated from the Liddell & Scott, Greek-English Lexicon; and Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon.

That the direction of the preposition EIS is always prospective is the opinion of Greek scholarship.
Obviously not ALL Greek scholarship.

Consider the following:
"In 1996, Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, an associate professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, published his new book, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan). It is a scholarly volume of more than 800 pages. In his discussion of eis, Wallace lists five uses of the preposition, and among them "causal" is conspicuously missing!

Prof. Wallace explains the absence. He says that an "interesting discussion over the force of eis took place several years ago, especially in relation to Acts 2:38." He references the position of J.R. Mantey, that "eis could be used causally" in this passage. Wallace mentions that Mantey was taken to task by another scholar, Ralph Marcus (Marcus, Journal of Biblical Literature, 70 [1952] 129-30; 71 [1953] 44). These two men engaged in what Dr. Wallace called a "blow-by-blow" encounter. When the smoke had cleared, the Dallas professor concedes, "Marcus ably demonstrated that the linguistic evidence for a causal eis fell short of proof" (370).
Though Wallace did not come to believe that baptism is necessary for salvation, he clearly refutes the causal "because of" meaning in Acts 2:38.[SUP]1[/SUP]
Baptism is not the means of salvation and the casual meaning is not the only argument for Acts 2:38, so discredit Wallace all you want. You won't change my mind. I grew up in the Roman Catholic church and had spent some time in the church of Christ prior to my conversion and have heard all of the sales pitches, so good luck fooling me. ;)

In Acts 2:38 EIS is not looking back at one's forgiveness and in Matthew 12:41 it is not looking back at Jonah's preaching.
Again, the casual argument is not the only argument for Acts 2:38, but speaking of looking back, is baptism looking back at repentance in Matthew 3:11 or does baptism obtain repentance? Does repentance precede baptism or does baptism precede repentance?

So as to remove the necessity of Baptism, many of our Baptist friends have taken to explaining Acts 2:38 in ways never depicted in a single translation of the Bible. That's significant!
What is significant is that your interpretation of Acts 2:38 is not in harmony with Acts 3:19; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31 and salvation through belief/faith "apart from additions or modifications." What happened to baptism in John 3:15,16,18,36; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26; Acts 10:43; 13:39; 16:31; Romans 1:16; 3:22-28; 4:4-6; 5:1; 10:4; 1 Corinthians 1:21; Ephesians 2:8,9 etc..? That's significant!

They say that the Greek preposition EIS, that says, "repent and let each of you be baptized FOR the remission of sins" may have a causal (read retrospective "because of") meaning which would support their position that salvation precedes baptism (regretably for them, if this were true, salvation would also precede repentance since they argue that only 'belief' is necessary).
Repentance is necessary for salvation and repentance precedes saving belief in Christ. "Belief/Faith" in the churches of Christ is understood as nothing more than "intellectual assent" or accepting the facts of the Christian faith. To them it is believing God’s historical testimony about Himself, Jesus Christ, and that of the rest of the Bible. Repentance on the other hand is understood as moral "self-reformation." In regards to Belief/Faith, those in the churches of Christ often fail to understand that there is a deeper, more substantive aspect of faith which is believing (trusting) in Jesus Christ for eternal life, and most cannot distinguish between mere intellectual belief or assent from a personal faith that is trusting exclusively in Jesus Christ for salvation. This also explains why you have so much faith in water and works.

In their view, one's baptism looks back to one's first point of salvation. However, the meaning of EIS, translated in the English as "for" never has a causal, retrospective meaning.
In Acts 2:38, "for the remission of sins" does not refer back to both clauses, "you all repent" and "each one of you be baptized," but refers only to the first. Peter is saying "repent unto the remission of your sins," the same as in Acts 3:19. The clause "each one of you be baptized" is parenthetical. That makes the most sense to me and is in harmony with Acts 3:19; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31 and the many many verses that make it clear that salvation is through believing in Him/faith "apart from additions or modifications".

Now, I am sure we can continue to post arguments and counter arguments from a wide variety of reputable scholars. Personally I am not interested in doing this.
ULTIMATELY, scripture MUST harmonize with scripture. That is the BOTTOM LINE for me, regardless of what he said, they said.
 

Atwood

Senior Member
May 1, 2014
4,995
53
48
#77
In Matthew 25:31-46, Jesus tells us about 2 groups of people. Both of them believe in Him, but only one group goes to heaven. It is the group that not only believes in Him, but obeys.
The Sheep & Goat Judgment of Mat 25 has not got one word about salvation. Salvation is about this loving Savior who has mercy on Sinners, transforms them to children or God, and gives them the free gift of eternal life -- not of works, lest anyone should boast.

There are 3 groups, not 2 in Mat 25 there. There are gentile nations judged as sheep or goats based on their treatment of a 3rd group (Christ's brethren). Mat 25 is a judgment at the end of the Tribulation for how Christ's brethren were treated by gentiles during the great tribulation. The passage is not about salvation, but judgment. Salvation precedes judgment. Those who trusted Christ as Savior become His sheep. To His sheep He promised: "I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish." After they became sheep, children of God, then good works follow their salvation. And judgment is by works; but salvation is never by works, but only by grace.

The only obedience which saves is obeying this command:

Believe on the Lord Jesus , and you shall be saved. -- Acts 16.
This is the only MUST I DO for salvation
 

Atwood

Senior Member
May 1, 2014
4,995
53
48
#78
I note that some go on & on arguing the grammar of Acts 2:38. I doubt that it can be said that all Greek scholars agree on it. (Scholars generally disagree on practically everything.)

But I don't think you have to settle the grammar. First you observe that salvation by faith alone is presented many, many times in the Bible, and that references to baptism in a salvation passage are rare. And you observe that salvation is not by human works. That rules out water baptism as a MUST I DO for salvation. Then come to Acts 2:38 and explain it in that light.

No water is mentioned in acts 2:38. So if you just take it as Spirit Baptism, your problems should be solved. If you think that water baptism saves, you are all wet.
 

Atwood

Senior Member
May 1, 2014
4,995
53
48
#79
I note a couple of errors below.

One is that The Sheep & Goats of Mat 25 are both believers. That is absurd, but I suppose it depends on what you mean by "believers." The demons are believers in the factual sense of believing certain things to be true. At any divine judgment of course everyone there will believe that God exists and that Jesus is Lord. Every knee will bow & tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.

But believers is normally used when you discuss salvation, for trusters, those who trust the Lord Jesus as their Savior. Since I was raised in a Campbellite denomination, I can relate to believing facts vs trusting the Savior. When I was 9 years old I walked forward with the invitation hymn. The preacher asked me if I BELIEVED that Jesus was the Son of God. I honestly answered, "Yes," and was duly dunked in the river. I got put on the church role as a member of the church. In the group I was in you didn't get "saved," but you "joined the church."

But if someone asked me where I would go if I died, I couldn't answer I knew I would to to Heaven; I thought that self-righteous, as I was taught going-to-Heaven by works, modeled on the Sheep & Goat judgment of Mat 25. I was not a believer in the Lord Jesus as Savior, though I believed certain facts about Him to be true.

So I have to wonder if most of these Acts 2:38 debaters don't know what saving faith is, confusing it with answering Yes to "Do you believe THAT Jesus is the Son of God."

The Goats in Mat 25 never trusted Christ as Savior, in that sense, they never believed in Him. They may indeed address Him as Lord when hauled into court for judgment. But that is not saving faith.

Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved. No ifs, ands, buts, or additions. Trusting the Savior is the only MUST I DO.


The 2nd error was charging the Great AT Robinson with sacrificing scholarship for personal bias, something like that. Actually an essential hermeneutical principle is the Analogy of the Faith. When you come to an odd verse, you indeed should give heed to the whole counsel of God on the subject. Since the Bible re-iterates over & over giving only 1 MUST I DO for salvation (faith/belief), it is legitimate if one finds one odd verse to try to find some way to reconcile it with the rest of God's Word, whether it requires giving a preposition an unusual, but possible meaning, or repunctuating the verse using parentheses (punctuation not being provided in the original), or whatever, scripture is of no private interpretation. I see no need to grasp at grammatical straws myself, I just see that Spirit Baptism makes good sense and does not violate the "not by human works" principle, so clear in the Bible.
 

Atwood

Senior Member
May 1, 2014
4,995
53
48
#80
I understand your point but I could not possibly care less what "Church history" taught or believed. Since scripture is equidistant to both time and culture this means that truth is not determined by either the history or the culture of the time in which it was written. Truth is found exclusively within the grammatical structure of the text and stands against both time an culture. Since sprinkling is not baptism and babies are not scriptural candidates for baptism, this is a rather moot argument.
The argument is needed because it was made by someone -- I don't think you made it; but you jumped in. So papist Church History proves nothing. But truth is NOT found exclusively within the grammatical structure of one passage; Truth is determined by considering the whole council of God on a topic. Since salvation & justification are dependent humanly speaking over & over just for faith/belief, and since human works are forbidden as saving, you must interpret Acts 2:38 in that context. No scripture is of any private interpretation.

I have marked all the passages on salvation from Genesis - Revelation. The only MUST I DO for salvation is to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ; that means to trust Him. You depend on Him for your eternal destiny, not on some human work like dipped in water.