Since Acts 2:38 teaches that the baptism commanded is "for the remission of sins,"
- Thread starter Preacher
- Start date
-
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.
Re: Since Acts 2:38 teaches that the baptism commanded is "for the remission of sins,
AT Robertson " 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. " AT Robertson. Word Pictures.
"In his massive Historical Grammar, Robertson suggested that sometimes “grammar” has to give way to “theology” (389). Is that any way to treat the verbally inspired word of God? Yet that is how Robertson sought to dispose of Acts 2:38. For shame!" W Jackson: https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1143-preposition-eis-in-acts-2-38-the
" J. R. Mantey contended for the “causal” sense of eis in Acts 2:38, though he classified that use of the preposition as a “remote meaning.” His discussion clearly indicated, however, that he yielded to that view because of his conviction that, if baptism was “for the purpose of the remission of sins,” then salvation would be of works, and not by faith (a false conclusion — see: H. E. Dana & J. R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, New York: Macmillan, 1955, 103-04)."
W. Jackson: https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/395-dallas-professor-rebuffs-common-quibble-on-eis
I see religious bias, nothing contextual in Acts 2:38, that leads to the causal definition erroneously given to eis. No Divine inspiration in theological biases.
Mt 26:28 "For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for (eis) the remission of sins."
Robertson is certain eis in MT 26:28 is look toward but not sure with the same phrase in Acts 2:38.
Christ did not shed His blood "because" sins were already remitted.
1 Tim 1:16 "Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to (eis) life everlasting."
Men do not believe on Christ "because" he already has everlasting life.
Acts 2:38 be baptized for remission of sins.
Col 2:11,12 another contextual proof baptism is the point God cuts away the body of sin/sins remitted.
Rev 1:5; Jn 19:34; Rom 6:2-7,16-18 Christ shed His blood in His death and it is baptism that puts one in Christ's death to have access to the blood that washes away sin..sins remitted. In baptism one becomes "dead" for he that is "dead" is freed from sin
AT Robertson " 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. " AT Robertson. Word Pictures.
"In his massive Historical Grammar, Robertson suggested that sometimes “grammar” has to give way to “theology” (389). Is that any way to treat the verbally inspired word of God? Yet that is how Robertson sought to dispose of Acts 2:38. For shame!" W Jackson: https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1143-preposition-eis-in-acts-2-38-the
" J. R. Mantey contended for the “causal” sense of eis in Acts 2:38, though he classified that use of the preposition as a “remote meaning.” His discussion clearly indicated, however, that he yielded to that view because of his conviction that, if baptism was “for the purpose of the remission of sins,” then salvation would be of works, and not by faith (a false conclusion — see: H. E. Dana & J. R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, New York: Macmillan, 1955, 103-04)."
W. Jackson: https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/395-dallas-professor-rebuffs-common-quibble-on-eis
I see religious bias, nothing contextual in Acts 2:38, that leads to the causal definition erroneously given to eis. No Divine inspiration in theological biases.
Mt 26:28 "For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for (eis) the remission of sins."
Robertson is certain eis in MT 26:28 is look toward but not sure with the same phrase in Acts 2:38.
Christ did not shed His blood "because" sins were already remitted.
1 Tim 1:16 "Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to (eis) life everlasting."
Men do not believe on Christ "because" he already has everlasting life.
Acts 2:38 be baptized for remission of sins.
Col 2:11,12 another contextual proof baptism is the point God cuts away the body of sin/sins remitted.
Rev 1:5; Jn 19:34; Rom 6:2-7,16-18 Christ shed His blood in His death and it is baptism that puts one in Christ's death to have access to the blood that washes away sin..sins remitted. In baptism one becomes "dead" for he that is "dead" is freed from sin
Re: Since Acts 2:38 teaches that the baptism commanded is "for the remission of sins,
Acts 22:16 "And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord."
It's NOT "...arise and be baptized, and because thy sins are already washed away, calling upon the name of the Lord."
I also find it interesting that "wash away" is imperative mood, middle voice....Saul was commanded to actively wash away his own sins. How would he go about obeying that command? How can man wash away his own sins, that is, "save thyself" cf Acts 2:40?
Acts 22:16 "And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord."
It's NOT "...arise and be baptized, and because thy sins are already washed away, calling upon the name of the Lord."
I also find it interesting that "wash away" is imperative mood, middle voice....Saul was commanded to actively wash away his own sins. How would he go about obeying that command? How can man wash away his own sins, that is, "save thyself" cf Acts 2:40?
Re: Since Acts 2:38 teaches that the baptism commanded is "for the remission of sins,
[h=1] Acts 22:16Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)
[/h] [SUP]16 [/SUP]So now, what are you waiting for? Get up, immerse yourself and have your sins washed away as you call on his name.’
Complete Jewish Bible (CJB) Copyright © 1998 by David H. Stern. All rights reserved.
besides, most people never have their sins washed away. ever. they really don't care. (most people)
[h=1] Acts 22:16Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)
[/h] [SUP]16 [/SUP]So now, what are you waiting for? Get up, immerse yourself and have your sins washed away as you call on his name.’
Complete Jewish Bible (CJB) Copyright © 1998 by David H. Stern. All rights reserved.
besides, most people never have their sins washed away. ever. they really don't care. (most people)
Re: Since Acts 2:38 teaches that the baptism commanded is "for the remission of sins,
not quite. truth, realty, doesn't conform to us....
"Brothers and sisters, if you have seen baptism as a reality you naturally know what it is. The question of its being true or false, inward or outward, simply does not exist, because you see that to be baptized is to be buried and raised up together with Christ. Having seen this reality, can you refrain from proclaiming that baptism is indeed so big, so real, and so inclusive? As soon as a person is shown the reality, then that which is false can no longer exist. Suppose someone should say: “Now that I have been baptized, I hope I may be buried and then raised together with the Lord.” The one who could utter such a statement has not touched reality, since to him baptism is one thing and burial and resurrection are quite another. But that person who perceives spiritual reality knows what burial and resurrection are. Baptism is burial, baptism is also resurrection. They are one and the same thing.
Do you realize, brothers and sisters, that no one can ever perceive spiritual things with his eyes fixed on the material, that no one can ever think through to the spiritual with his brain? All spiritual matters have their realities. He who has touched reality questions no more. (Spiritual Reality and Obession, CFP white cover only, pp.7-8, by Watchman Nee)"
not quite. truth, realty, doesn't conform to us....
"Brothers and sisters, if you have seen baptism as a reality you naturally know what it is. The question of its being true or false, inward or outward, simply does not exist, because you see that to be baptized is to be buried and raised up together with Christ. Having seen this reality, can you refrain from proclaiming that baptism is indeed so big, so real, and so inclusive? As soon as a person is shown the reality, then that which is false can no longer exist. Suppose someone should say: “Now that I have been baptized, I hope I may be buried and then raised together with the Lord.” The one who could utter such a statement has not touched reality, since to him baptism is one thing and burial and resurrection are quite another. But that person who perceives spiritual reality knows what burial and resurrection are. Baptism is burial, baptism is also resurrection. They are one and the same thing.
Do you realize, brothers and sisters, that no one can ever perceive spiritual things with his eyes fixed on the material, that no one can ever think through to the spiritual with his brain? All spiritual matters have their realities. He who has touched reality questions no more. (Spiritual Reality and Obession, CFP white cover only, pp.7-8, by Watchman Nee)"
Re: Since Acts 2:38 teaches that the baptism commanded is "for the remission of sins,
AT Robertson on Acts 22:16:
" It is possible, as in Acts 2:38, to take these words as teaching baptismal remission or salvation by means of baptism, but to do so is in my opinion a complete subversion of Paul‘s vivid and picturesque language."
AT Robertson on Acts 22:16:
" It is possible, as in Acts 2:38, to take these words as teaching baptismal remission or salvation by means of baptism, but to do so is in my opinion a complete subversion of Paul‘s vivid and picturesque language."
Re: Since Acts 2:38 teaches that the baptism commanded is "for the remission of sins,
Originally Posted by mailmandan
Interesting. So even looking forward, Acts 2:38 does not necessarily have to mean that water baptism is what obtains the remission of sins, as Daniel Wallace points out. How do you harmonize your interpretation of Acts 2:38 with Acts 3:19; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31? This is what ultimately decides it for me. Scripture MUST harmonize with Scripture or else we have a contradiction and there can be no contradictions in God's Word.
Okay Dan, you have been very patient on this question and I appreciate it. It looks like things have sowed down some on the matter of εἰς so, if you would like to discuss the symmetry between these other passages and Acts 2 perhaps now would be a good time to look at this. If you would like, let's take just one passage at a time so the conversation can be kept to a manageable discussion. Where would like to begin?
Interesting. So even looking forward, Acts 2:38 does not necessarily have to mean that water baptism is what obtains the remission of sins, as Daniel Wallace points out. How do you harmonize your interpretation of Acts 2:38 with Acts 3:19; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31? This is what ultimately decides it for me. Scripture MUST harmonize with Scripture or else we have a contradiction and there can be no contradictions in God's Word.
Re: Since Acts 2:38 teaches that the baptism commanded is "for the remission of sins,
Everything that took place up until the resurrection was under the period of the Law. The reason Jesus was baptized was not because he had sins to be removed but because this was what God sent John to do for all those of Israel. As part of that demographic Jesus complies with the baptism of John as all Israel was commanded to do. This is part of fulfilling all the Law of God. This fulfills righteousness.
Everything that took place up until the resurrection was under the period of the Law. The reason Jesus was baptized was not because he had sins to be removed but because this was what God sent John to do for all those of Israel. As part of that demographic Jesus complies with the baptism of John as all Israel was commanded to do. This is part of fulfilling all the Law of God. This fulfills righteousness.
Re: Since Acts 2:38 teaches that the baptism commanded is "for the remission of sins,
Still fails to address the change into the NT where righteousness is no longer by the law but by grace through faith. God made Christ to be sin for us that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him. 2 Cor 5:21 This is not received by water baptism but by imputation through grace. Freely bestowed upon all who seek it.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
Still fails to address the change into the NT where righteousness is no longer by the law but by grace through faith. God made Christ to be sin for us that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him. 2 Cor 5:21 This is not received by water baptism but by imputation through grace. Freely bestowed upon all who seek it.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
Re: Since Acts 2:38 teaches that the baptism commanded is "for the remission of sins,
Acts 10:43-47 is a good place to begin. People who teach that Acts 2:38 must mean that baptism is in order to obtain the remission of sins usually end up dismissing the fact that these Gentiles have clearly received "the gift of the Holy Spirit" and in addition the gift of tongues, which is only for the body of Christ "prior to being water baptized" yet they reduce this to merely receiving the gift of tongues.
Acts 10:43-47 is a good place to begin. People who teach that Acts 2:38 must mean that baptism is in order to obtain the remission of sins usually end up dismissing the fact that these Gentiles have clearly received "the gift of the Holy Spirit" and in addition the gift of tongues, which is only for the body of Christ "prior to being water baptized" yet they reduce this to merely receiving the gift of tongues.
Re: Since Acts 2:38 teaches that the baptism commanded is "for the remission of sins,
My error! I meant post #26.
oldhermit
Senior Member
Join DateJuly 28th, 2012Age60Posts5,088 Rep Power21
[h=2]
Re: Since Acts 2:38 teaches that the baptism commanded is "for the remission of sins,[/h]
Originally Posted by MarcR
D. eis in a Logical Connection.
1. Very occasionally
εἰς
states a reason, e.g., "in view of" in Ro 4:20; cf. Mt 12:41; 2 Co 10:16; Gal 6:4 where, after testing, the self, not others, must provide reason for boasting.
(from Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, abridged edition, Copyright © 1985 by William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. All rights reserved.)
NT:1519
C. 528' (Fritzsche). of the consideration influencing one to do anything:
εἰς
at the preaching of one, i. e. out of regard to the substance of his preaching, Mt 12:41;
(from Thayer's Greek Lexicon, PC Study Bible formatted Electronic Database. Copyright © 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)
Yes, this is correct.
My error! I meant post #26.
oldhermit
[h=2]
D. eis in a Logical Connection.
1. Very occasionally
εἰς
states a reason, e.g., "in view of" in Ro 4:20; cf. Mt 12:41; 2 Co 10:16; Gal 6:4 where, after testing, the self, not others, must provide reason for boasting.
(from Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, abridged edition, Copyright © 1985 by William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. All rights reserved.)
NT:1519
C. 528' (Fritzsche). of the consideration influencing one to do anything:
εἰς
at the preaching of one, i. e. out of regard to the substance of his preaching, Mt 12:41;
(from Thayer's Greek Lexicon, PC Study Bible formatted Electronic Database. Copyright © 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)
Re: Since Acts 2:38 teaches that the baptism commanded is "for the remission of sins,
Okay, I got you. When I read that I saw 'in view of' as meaning looking forward toward something, not as looking back on it. That is why I agreed. I did not really pay that much attention to the scripture references you gave. If I had I would have recognized them. I guess that will teach me not to agree with something without fully reading what was said.
Okay, I got you. When I read that I saw 'in view of' as meaning looking forward toward something, not as looking back on it. That is why I agreed. I did not really pay that much attention to the scripture references you gave. If I had I would have recognized them. I guess that will teach me not to agree with something without fully reading what was said.
Re: Since Acts 2:38 teaches that the baptism commanded is "for the remission of sins,
Yes, righteousness is no longer by the law and for the Gentile, it never was but this in no way negates the place or the importance that God has placed on baptism in the scripture. You are absolutely correct that acts of righteousness does not save us. This is a fundamental truth. What Paul tells us in Titus 3:5 is that God "saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit." But, in this he is not negating out obligation the works of righteousness. He is only confirming that it is not the works themselves by which we are saved.
Yes, righteousness is no longer by the law and for the Gentile, it never was but this in no way negates the place or the importance that God has placed on baptism in the scripture. You are absolutely correct that acts of righteousness does not save us. This is a fundamental truth. What Paul tells us in Titus 3:5 is that God "saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit." But, in this he is not negating out obligation the works of righteousness. He is only confirming that it is not the works themselves by which we are saved.
Last edited: