Baptism Essential to Salvation
- Thread starter apostolic862004
- 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.
Acts 2:38 makes no reference to water. Obedience to the command is followed by the gift of the Spirit. Peter addresses the People here, not the Church which had been Spirit baptised. Water baptism cannot be salvific, for it is a human work. Spirit baptism is God's work & it is salvific. The baptism in context is Spirit baptism.
"Now when they [the men of Israel] heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and the rest of the apostles, Brethren, what shall we do?"
Surely this is the audience, not the apostles or believers who were already baptized.
Πέτρος δὲ πρὸς αὐτούς, Μετανοήσατε, [φησίν,] καὶ βαπτισθήτω ἕκαστος ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ὑμῶν καὶ λήμψεσθε τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος.
Peter says to them,
Have a change of mind,
and be baptized each of you upon [epi being capable of different interps]
the name of Jesus Christ towards [eis being capable of different interps]
forgiveness of your sins,
and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
BTW, I don't know of any proof that eis here implies that the preceding is causative of the forgiveness.
The passage makes good sense as referring to Spirit baptism.
"Now when they [the men of Israel] heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and the rest of the apostles, Brethren, what shall we do?"
Surely this is the audience, not the apostles or believers who were already baptized.
Πέτρος δὲ πρὸς αὐτούς, Μετανοήσατε, [φησίν,] καὶ βαπτισθήτω ἕκαστος ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ὑμῶν καὶ λήμψεσθε τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος.
Peter says to them,
Have a change of mind,
and be baptized each of you upon [epi being capable of different interps]
the name of Jesus Christ towards [eis being capable of different interps]
forgiveness of your sins,
and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
BTW, I don't know of any proof that eis here implies that the preceding is causative of the forgiveness.
The passage makes good sense as referring to Spirit baptism.
E
You need to read it in the greek.
He is saying Repent every one of you, and you will be given the gift of the spirit (both plural verbs in the second person) And be baptized on the fct you have received remission of sin (both singular 3rd person)
It goes with context with what follows.
And everyone who believed were baptized (they obeyed Peters command)
both repent and be baptized are commands. Where the mix up is in who is being commanded to do it.
Repent is a command given to everyone there
Baptized is a command given to induviduals, the modifying phrase is remmision of sin.
eis can be because of. In order to, In this case, the interpretation would be because of, or in reference to something that already took place.
He is saying Repent every one of you, and you will be given the gift of the spirit (both plural verbs in the second person) And be baptized on the fct you have received remission of sin (both singular 3rd person)
It goes with context with what follows.
And everyone who believed were baptized (they obeyed Peters command)
both repent and be baptized are commands. Where the mix up is in who is being commanded to do it.
Repent is a command given to everyone there
Baptized is a command given to induviduals, the modifying phrase is remmision of sin.
eis can be because of. In order to, In this case, the interpretation would be because of, or in reference to something that already took place.
I just posted it in Greek and translated it for you. I have a master's in Greek.
What you are saying sounds exactly like a great Bible teacher taught me years ago. But on this one he was wrong. Everyone is grammatically singular, but it refers to the same group as "you." It just uses a collective singular followed by a plural that refers to the same group.
Μετανοήσατε, [φησίν,] καὶ βαπτισθήτω ἕκαστος ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ὑμῶν καὶ λήμψεσθε τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος.
Μετανοήσατε = repent ye; plural
[φησίν,] καὶ
βαπτισθήτω ἕκαστος ὑμῶν be baptized each [singular] of you [plural]
This is an ad sensum construction, of which the Bible must have a multitude. Each of you is just another way of referring to the same plural group.
ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ὑμῶν καὶ
λήμψεσθε = you shall receive [this is future plural]
τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος = the gift of the Holy Spirit. That is what is in context, the Holy Spirit. The passage began with baptism of the Spirit and IMHO continues on it.
Here is what it says:
"They then that received his word were baptized: and there were added unto them in that day about three thousand souls."
I take that to mean Spirit baptism which in fact adds persons to the Body of Christ.
It is manifestly the same group that gets both commands.
The individuals are the same as the group. I don't blame persons for reaching for this exegetical straw. Some way has to be found to reconcile Acts 2:38 with the rest of the abundance of scripture which teaches that only faith/belief is required for salvation. Since Spirit baptism is in context (but not water) and since it makes good sense, Spirit baptism is my interpretation.
The interpretation of eis is a difficulty. Also I see the possibility that epi (upon) the name of Jesus means into His body. And thus it is not parallel to the water baptism of Mat 28 in the name of the Father, Son, & Holy Spirit. Mat 28
βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος.
In Mat 28 it is not epi, but eis the name.
If an atheist goes from not believing in the existence of God to believing in the existence of God, he has changed his mind about believing that God exists. That still is not enough to save him. Now that the former atheist believes in the existence of God, he still needs to repent about his sinful position and need for Christ to save him and the new direction of this change of mind must be faith in Christ for salvation. He still needs to repent and believe the gospel/trust in Christ's finished work of redemption as the all sufficient means of his salvation (Romans 1:16). That is a DEEPER belief/faith which goes beyond merely believing "mental assent" in the existence of God (James 2:19). You can't seem to grasp the difference and there is a reason for that.
An atheist can go from unbelief in the existence of God to belief in the existence of God. (Just ask Lee Strobel). But then he still needs to realize his sinful position and need for Christ to save him and place his faith in Christ for salvation in order to be saved. Repentance is not unto life until the new direction of this change of mind is believing on the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 11:17,18; 16:31).
I'm not reversing the order. Simply believing in the existence of God comes before changing our mind about our sinful position and need for Christ to save us and the new direction of this change of mind is faith in Christ for salvation. Simply changing our mind about the existence of God and now believing that God exists is not enough to save. If someone believes that God exists but has not yet placed their faith in Jesus Christ for salvation, then they still need to repent and believe the gospel (Romans 1:16). Those who believe in the existence of God "but trust in works for salvation" still need to repent and believe the gospel. Is that clear enough?
There it is. The church of Christ. I see that you continue to "parrot off" what your predecessors before you have taught.
Water baptism does not obtain the remission of sins and is parenthetical. I can quote Greek scholars as well:
Greek scholar A. T. Robertson, was probably the greatest Greek scholar of his day. He authored a large Greek Grammar, as well as a six volume series entitled, Word Pictures in the New Testament. In his comments on Acts 2:38 he shows how the grammar of this verse can be used to support more than one interpretation of this text. He then reaches this conclusion: “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.” The illustrations of both usages are numerous in the N.T. and the Koin, generally (Robertson, Grammar, page 592).
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.
E. Calvin Beisner - In Peter’s command, the verb repent (Greek metanohvsate, metanoēsate) is second-person plural. Adopting a Southern dialect for a moment, we can translate it “Y’all repent.” The verb be baptized (baptisqhvtw, baptisthētō), however, is third-person singular. We can translate it, for emphasis’ sake, “let him [or her] be baptized.” In the phrase for the forgiveness of your sins, the word your (uJmwÇn, humōn) is second-person plural again. In that Southern dialect, it would translate, “for the forgiveness of y’all’s sins.”
Imagine the implications of ignoring this switch from second-person plural to third-person singular and back. Since the command be baptized is third-person singular, and the pronoun your in your sins is second-person plural, the sense would be that each one should be baptized for the forgiveness of not only his own sins but also the sins of all the others there. Mormons may think they can be baptized for the forgiveness of others’ sins, but Peter certainly didn’t teach that!
Some object to this reasoning by pointing out that be baptized is followed by every one of you (e”kastoV uJmwÇn, hekastos humōn), and that in that phrase you (uJmwÇn, humōn) is second-person plural.6 Wouldn’t it follow, then, that the connection is between this you and the forgiveness of your sins?
That ignores the grammar, too. In Greek, every one of you is comprised of the adjective for each (e”kastoV, hekastos), which is used as a noun here, and the partitive genitive pronoun for you (uJmwÇn, humōn). (That is, every one is part [hence partitive] of you [plural].) You identifies the class of which every one is a part. The command [let him] be baptized, moreover, is third-person singular, and its subject is not you but every one. For you to have been the subject of the command to be baptized, it would have to have been in the nominative, or subject, case (uJmeiæV, humeis), not in the genitive, or possessive, case (uJmwÇn, humōn), and the command be baptized would have to have been in the second-person plural (baptivsesqe, baptisesthe), not in the third-person singular (baptisqhvtw, baptistheitō).
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.
Does Acts 2:38 prove baptismal remission? No, it doesn’t even support it as part of a cumulative case. — E. Calvin Beisner
When we examine the Greek behind the verse, we notice an interesting pattern in the number (singular vs. plural) of the verbs employed. A more literal translation may be:
Then Peter said to them, “You all [plural] repent, and you [singular] be baptized, each of you all [plural] calling upon the name of Jesus Christ into the forgiveness of the sins of you all [plural] and you all [plural] shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
Although it is possible to put too much emphasis on grammatical subtleties, we notice that while each individual is urged to be baptized, the verbs associated with repentance, forgiveness of sins, and receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit are all plural in number. This might indicate that Peter is advocating to the entire group the essentials of salvation (repentance, forgiveness, receiving the Spirit) and indicating that the appropriate individual response is that of baptism.
The three clauses are --
(1) 'Repent ye:'
'ye' -- subject, second person plural number.
'Repent' -- verb, second person plural number, aorist imperative active voice.
(2) 'be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of sins:'
“every one of you” – third person, singular number.
'be baptized' -- verb, third person singular number, aorist passive imperative voice.
“unto the remission of your sins” – modifying phrase.
(3) 'ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit:'
'ye' -- subject, second person plural number.
'shall receive' -- verb, second person plural number, future, indicative voice.
'the gift of the Holy Spirit' -- direct object of verb.
The Greek rule regarding agreement between verbs and pronouns requires that the remission of sins be connected with repentance, not with baptism.
The fundamental question is this - to which verb, the verb "repent," or the verb "be baptized," does the prepositional phrase "for the remission of your sins" refer to or connect? That is the $64, 000 question.
First, lets talk about the ANTECEDENT OF humon or the pronoun "your" in English. What is the antecedent of this pronoun? In order to answer this, we must first note that there are two main clauses preceding the prepositional phrase.
Though both leading clauses are imperatives, they are not identical, for the first clause, "repent ye" (including both verb and pronoun), is second person plural, while the second clause, "each one of you be baptized" (including both verb and pronoun), is third person singular. Thus, there is a change of both person and number between the verbs and pronouns in these two clauses.
In the prepositional phrase, "for the remission or YOUR sins," the pronoun “your” is second person plural. The effect of this change from second person plural to third person singular, and then back again to second person plural, shows that the phrase connects directly with the command to “repent.”
Essentially what you have is - “You (plural) repent for the forgiveness of your (plural) sins, and let each one (singular) of you be baptized (singular).” Or, “You all repent for the forgiveness of all of your sins, and let each one of you be baptized.”
Acts 2:38 has two occurrences of the pronoun "your" or "humon"; both are second person plural in the genitive case. The first occurs in the phrase "each of you," in which humon functions as a partitive genitive, indicating the group from which each person derives. The second occurrence is in the phrase "for the remission of your sins," in which humon is a subjective genitive indicating whose sins are involved in the remission.
The basic rule of concord, in Greek, stipulates that a personal pronoun (in this case humon) agrees with its antecedent in gender and number.
The concord between verb and pronoun requires that the remission of sins be connected with repentance, not with baptism.
If one associates forgiveness with baptism, the verse translated into English, with due accord to person and number, would read like this, "let him [third singular] be baptized for the remission of your [second plural] sins." But, such an interpretation or translation would be supporting an absurdity. It would be affirming that an individual's baptism remitted the sin of others, in this case, that of the Pentecostal penitents, or of the crowd, as a group.
The structure of Acts 2:38 illustrates that the command to be baptized is parenthetical and is not syntactically connected to remission of sins. When Peter commanded the people to repent, he was speaking to the crowd. Then the command to be baptized was directed to each individual. In the "remission of your sins" phrase, Peter again directed his words to the crowd collectively.
The issue in Acts 2:38 is that of agreement between the personal pronoun humon and its antecedent.
One must not impose English word order rules on the Greek text. In English the phrase "for the forgiveness of your sins" may be connected to either "repent," "be baptized," or both. However, in the Greek it cannot be so.
"It is a rule of Greek grammar, as it is in English, that the verb agrees with its subject in person and number:"
"Person is the quality of verbs which indicates whether the subject is speaking (first person), is being spoken to (second person), or is being spoken of (third person) ...
"Number is the quality of verbs which indicates whether the subject is singular or plural" Ray Summers, Essentials of New Testament Greek (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1950), p.12:
"If the subject of a verb is the person or the group of persons speaking, the verb is in the first person. If the subject of a verb is the person or group of persons spoken to, the verb is in the second person. If the subject of a verb is the person or the thing or the group spoken of, the verb is the third person" Let's Study Greek by Clarence B. Hale (Chicago: Moody Press, 1966), p. 9:
"These quotations from 'standard' Greek grammars express the simple fact that subjects and verbs agree with one another.
"It is evident, then, that repentance and baptism in Acts 2:38 cannot be combined so as to have both modified by the phrase, 'for the remission of sins.' The proper grammatical construction of the sentence forbids it.
We can quote "he said, they said" all day long but ultimately that won't settle the argument. For me, harmonizing scripture with scripture settles the argument. Scripture cannot contradict other scripture. Which interpretation is in perfect harmony?
In Acts 2:38, repentance is the means of receiving forgiveness and baptism is in reference to true repentance and forgiveness.
Acts 3:19 - Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord. *What happened to baptism?
Acts 10:43-47 - To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins. While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then Peter answered, "Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit (BEFORE BAPTISM) just as we have?" *What happened to baptism in verse 43?
Acts 11:17 - If therefore God gave them the same gift as He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?" When they heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God, saying, "Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance unto life. *What happened to baptism?
Acts 15:8,9 - So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. *What happened to baptism?
Faith in Jesus Christ "implied in genuine repentance" (rather than water baptism) brings the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38; 3:19; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9). *Perfect Harmony*
Your "water and works" gospel is a perversion of the gospel of Christ which is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who BELIEVES.. (Romans 1:16)
An atheist can go from unbelief in the existence of God to belief in the existence of God. (Just ask Lee Strobel). But then he still needs to realize his sinful position and need for Christ to save him and place his faith in Christ for salvation in order to be saved. Repentance is not unto life until the new direction of this change of mind is believing on the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 11:17,18; 16:31).
I'm not reversing the order. Simply believing in the existence of God comes before changing our mind about our sinful position and need for Christ to save us and the new direction of this change of mind is faith in Christ for salvation. Simply changing our mind about the existence of God and now believing that God exists is not enough to save. If someone believes that God exists but has not yet placed their faith in Jesus Christ for salvation, then they still need to repent and believe the gospel (Romans 1:16). Those who believe in the existence of God "but trust in works for salvation" still need to repent and believe the gospel. Is that clear enough?
There it is. The church of Christ. I see that you continue to "parrot off" what your predecessors before you have taught.
Water baptism does not obtain the remission of sins and is parenthetical. I can quote Greek scholars as well:
Greek scholar A. T. Robertson, was probably the greatest Greek scholar of his day. He authored a large Greek Grammar, as well as a six volume series entitled, Word Pictures in the New Testament. In his comments on Acts 2:38 he shows how the grammar of this verse can be used to support more than one interpretation of this text. He then reaches this conclusion: “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.” The illustrations of both usages are numerous in the N.T. and the Koin, generally (Robertson, Grammar, page 592).
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.
E. Calvin Beisner - In Peter’s command, the verb repent (Greek metanohvsate, metanoēsate) is second-person plural. Adopting a Southern dialect for a moment, we can translate it “Y’all repent.” The verb be baptized (baptisqhvtw, baptisthētō), however, is third-person singular. We can translate it, for emphasis’ sake, “let him [or her] be baptized.” In the phrase for the forgiveness of your sins, the word your (uJmwÇn, humōn) is second-person plural again. In that Southern dialect, it would translate, “for the forgiveness of y’all’s sins.”
Imagine the implications of ignoring this switch from second-person plural to third-person singular and back. Since the command be baptized is third-person singular, and the pronoun your in your sins is second-person plural, the sense would be that each one should be baptized for the forgiveness of not only his own sins but also the sins of all the others there. Mormons may think they can be baptized for the forgiveness of others’ sins, but Peter certainly didn’t teach that!
Some object to this reasoning by pointing out that be baptized is followed by every one of you (e”kastoV uJmwÇn, hekastos humōn), and that in that phrase you (uJmwÇn, humōn) is second-person plural.6 Wouldn’t it follow, then, that the connection is between this you and the forgiveness of your sins?
That ignores the grammar, too. In Greek, every one of you is comprised of the adjective for each (e”kastoV, hekastos), which is used as a noun here, and the partitive genitive pronoun for you (uJmwÇn, humōn). (That is, every one is part [hence partitive] of you [plural].) You identifies the class of which every one is a part. The command [let him] be baptized, moreover, is third-person singular, and its subject is not you but every one. For you to have been the subject of the command to be baptized, it would have to have been in the nominative, or subject, case (uJmeiæV, humeis), not in the genitive, or possessive, case (uJmwÇn, humōn), and the command be baptized would have to have been in the second-person plural (baptivsesqe, baptisesthe), not in the third-person singular (baptisqhvtw, baptistheitō).
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.
Does Acts 2:38 prove baptismal remission? No, it doesn’t even support it as part of a cumulative case. — E. Calvin Beisner
When we examine the Greek behind the verse, we notice an interesting pattern in the number (singular vs. plural) of the verbs employed. A more literal translation may be:
Then Peter said to them, “You all [plural] repent, and you [singular] be baptized, each of you all [plural] calling upon the name of Jesus Christ into the forgiveness of the sins of you all [plural] and you all [plural] shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
Although it is possible to put too much emphasis on grammatical subtleties, we notice that while each individual is urged to be baptized, the verbs associated with repentance, forgiveness of sins, and receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit are all plural in number. This might indicate that Peter is advocating to the entire group the essentials of salvation (repentance, forgiveness, receiving the Spirit) and indicating that the appropriate individual response is that of baptism.
The three clauses are --
(1) 'Repent ye:'
'ye' -- subject, second person plural number.
'Repent' -- verb, second person plural number, aorist imperative active voice.
(2) 'be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of sins:'
“every one of you” – third person, singular number.
'be baptized' -- verb, third person singular number, aorist passive imperative voice.
“unto the remission of your sins” – modifying phrase.
(3) 'ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit:'
'ye' -- subject, second person plural number.
'shall receive' -- verb, second person plural number, future, indicative voice.
'the gift of the Holy Spirit' -- direct object of verb.
The Greek rule regarding agreement between verbs and pronouns requires that the remission of sins be connected with repentance, not with baptism.
The fundamental question is this - to which verb, the verb "repent," or the verb "be baptized," does the prepositional phrase "for the remission of your sins" refer to or connect? That is the $64, 000 question.
First, lets talk about the ANTECEDENT OF humon or the pronoun "your" in English. What is the antecedent of this pronoun? In order to answer this, we must first note that there are two main clauses preceding the prepositional phrase.
Though both leading clauses are imperatives, they are not identical, for the first clause, "repent ye" (including both verb and pronoun), is second person plural, while the second clause, "each one of you be baptized" (including both verb and pronoun), is third person singular. Thus, there is a change of both person and number between the verbs and pronouns in these two clauses.
In the prepositional phrase, "for the remission or YOUR sins," the pronoun “your” is second person plural. The effect of this change from second person plural to third person singular, and then back again to second person plural, shows that the phrase connects directly with the command to “repent.”
Essentially what you have is - “You (plural) repent for the forgiveness of your (plural) sins, and let each one (singular) of you be baptized (singular).” Or, “You all repent for the forgiveness of all of your sins, and let each one of you be baptized.”
Acts 2:38 has two occurrences of the pronoun "your" or "humon"; both are second person plural in the genitive case. The first occurs in the phrase "each of you," in which humon functions as a partitive genitive, indicating the group from which each person derives. The second occurrence is in the phrase "for the remission of your sins," in which humon is a subjective genitive indicating whose sins are involved in the remission.
The basic rule of concord, in Greek, stipulates that a personal pronoun (in this case humon) agrees with its antecedent in gender and number.
The concord between verb and pronoun requires that the remission of sins be connected with repentance, not with baptism.
If one associates forgiveness with baptism, the verse translated into English, with due accord to person and number, would read like this, "let him [third singular] be baptized for the remission of your [second plural] sins." But, such an interpretation or translation would be supporting an absurdity. It would be affirming that an individual's baptism remitted the sin of others, in this case, that of the Pentecostal penitents, or of the crowd, as a group.
The structure of Acts 2:38 illustrates that the command to be baptized is parenthetical and is not syntactically connected to remission of sins. When Peter commanded the people to repent, he was speaking to the crowd. Then the command to be baptized was directed to each individual. In the "remission of your sins" phrase, Peter again directed his words to the crowd collectively.
The issue in Acts 2:38 is that of agreement between the personal pronoun humon and its antecedent.
One must not impose English word order rules on the Greek text. In English the phrase "for the forgiveness of your sins" may be connected to either "repent," "be baptized," or both. However, in the Greek it cannot be so.
"It is a rule of Greek grammar, as it is in English, that the verb agrees with its subject in person and number:"
"Person is the quality of verbs which indicates whether the subject is speaking (first person), is being spoken to (second person), or is being spoken of (third person) ...
"Number is the quality of verbs which indicates whether the subject is singular or plural" Ray Summers, Essentials of New Testament Greek (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1950), p.12:
"If the subject of a verb is the person or the group of persons speaking, the verb is in the first person. If the subject of a verb is the person or group of persons spoken to, the verb is in the second person. If the subject of a verb is the person or the thing or the group spoken of, the verb is the third person" Let's Study Greek by Clarence B. Hale (Chicago: Moody Press, 1966), p. 9:
"These quotations from 'standard' Greek grammars express the simple fact that subjects and verbs agree with one another.
"It is evident, then, that repentance and baptism in Acts 2:38 cannot be combined so as to have both modified by the phrase, 'for the remission of sins.' The proper grammatical construction of the sentence forbids it.
We can quote "he said, they said" all day long but ultimately that won't settle the argument. For me, harmonizing scripture with scripture settles the argument. Scripture cannot contradict other scripture. Which interpretation is in perfect harmony?
In Acts 2:38, repentance is the means of receiving forgiveness and baptism is in reference to true repentance and forgiveness.
Acts 3:19 - Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord. *What happened to baptism?
Acts 10:43-47 - To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins. While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then Peter answered, "Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit (BEFORE BAPTISM) just as we have?" *What happened to baptism in verse 43?
Acts 11:17 - If therefore God gave them the same gift as He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?" When they heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God, saying, "Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance unto life. *What happened to baptism?
Acts 15:8,9 - So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. *What happened to baptism?
Faith in Jesus Christ "implied in genuine repentance" (rather than water baptism) brings the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38; 3:19; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9). *Perfect Harmony*
Your "water and works" gospel is a perversion of the gospel of Christ which is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who BELIEVES.. (Romans 1:16)
K
Repentance comes before one is saved.
Luke 13:3
I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.
This scripture from our Lord makes that evident because if you do not repent you will perish.
Saved can not come before repentance, because that would make this scripture a lie to those who believe once you are saved you can not lose that salvation.
Luke 13:3
I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.
This scripture from our Lord makes that evident because if you do not repent you will perish.
Saved can not come before repentance, because that would make this scripture a lie to those who believe once you are saved you can not lose that salvation.
E
we will just have to agree to disagree.
singular 3rd person, and plural 2nd person subjects and verbs do not go together. in any language
Its like saying all of you repent and let each one of them be baptized for the remission of sin, and all of you will recieve the gift of the spirit.
It does not make sense.
Not to mention, if it is Holy Spirit baptism, the word eis (for to recieve, or for because) does not make any sense with the subject being remmision of sin. Because the baptism of the spirit is not because of remission of sin, remission is the end result of this baptism. not to mention it is a command to be baptised
I gave you quote from Greek scholars that refuted your position. You can continue to repost time after time but it is a failed argument.
A football coach tells his team "You all (plural) do 50 sit-ups then each one of you (singular) run to your (plural) locker for a rest".
Is not the coach addressing the whole team when he tells them to do sit ups? Yes
Is not the coach addressing the whole team when he said to run to your locker? Yes.
There is no grammatical rule that proves the coach was not addressing the whole teanm when using both the plural and singular.
Lastly, you continue to avoid that repentance is tied to baptized by the conjunction "and" meaning you cannot separate them under any circumstance as you are trying to do.
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins,
Also the underlined "you" above is PLURAL and the antecedent of this plural pronoun "you" is "be baptized every one" So both the plural "repent" and plural "you...be baptized" go with "remission of sins".
Can your prove the plural pronoun "your" that is not in some versions was part of the original language Peter used?
A football coach tells his team "You all (plural) do 50 sit-ups then each one of you (singular) run to your (plural) locker for a rest".
Is not the coach addressing the whole team when he tells them to do sit ups? Yes
Is not the coach addressing the whole team when he said to run to your locker? Yes.
There is no grammatical rule that proves the coach was not addressing the whole teanm when using both the plural and singular.
Lastly, you continue to avoid that repentance is tied to baptized by the conjunction "and" meaning you cannot separate them under any circumstance as you are trying to do.
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins,
Also the underlined "you" above is PLURAL and the antecedent of this plural pronoun "you" is "be baptized every one" So both the plural "repent" and plural "you...be baptized" go with "remission of sins".
Can your prove the plural pronoun "your" that is not in some versions was part of the original language Peter used?
SeaBass, there is no concensus among Bible-believing Greek scholars to the effect that the Bible teaches that water baptism is essential to salvation. Bible-believing Greek scholars are likely to come to Acts 2:38 realizing that the entire teaching of the Bible is that faith alone saves. Given that, then they look for a way to understand Acts 2:38 in that light. No scripture is of any private interpretation; they follow the hermeneutical principle called "Analogy of the Faith," the understanding that it all harmonizes. The overwhelming evidence of the Bible is thus that water baptism is not essential. This is enforced by the dictum that salvation is not by human works. Water baptism is a human work.
For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, not of works lest anyone should boast.
Spirit baptism is the best understanding of Acts 2:38, as that is not a human work & is savific. It is also in the context of Acts 2. Water is not in 2:38.
But however you construe the grammar of Acts 2:38, the fact remains:
What must I do to be saved?
Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved.
That any many other verses proves that water-baptism is not essential to salvation.
He who thinks that any human work saves, need to repent of that sin, and trust the Savior to do the Saving.
Thou shalt call His name Jesus, for He shall save His people from their sins.
For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, not of works lest anyone should boast.
Spirit baptism is the best understanding of Acts 2:38, as that is not a human work & is savific. It is also in the context of Acts 2. Water is not in 2:38.
But however you construe the grammar of Acts 2:38, the fact remains:
What must I do to be saved?
Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved.
That any many other verses proves that water-baptism is not essential to salvation.
He who thinks that any human work saves, need to repent of that sin, and trust the Savior to do the Saving.
Thou shalt call His name Jesus, for He shall save His people from their sins.
Now give us a verse that says the part of man in salvation changed across dispensations.
It is a serious error to think that there are different ways to be saved in different dispensations. Man's part has always been to believe/faith, as is shown with Abraham. The same thing is true in the gospels, and the the epistles. Water baptism never saves.
Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved.
The thief on the cross was saved the same way as Abraham, and persons in the Church Age; by faith.
It is a serious error to think that there are different ways to be saved in different dispensations. Man's part has always been to believe/faith, as is shown with Abraham. The same thing is true in the gospels, and the the epistles. Water baptism never saves.
Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved.
The thief on the cross was saved the same way as Abraham, and persons in the Church Age; by faith.
Well, we can agree to disagree, as IMHO, only in a cult do all persons agree on everything; certainly we may disagree on the interpretation of one verse.
But I think if you investigate, you may realize that ad sensum constructions are common. (You may wish to Google ad sensum). The same group can be referred to differently.
Since the Baptism of the Spirit puts one into the Body of Christ, with the understanding that this baptism places the believer into Christ in His crucifixion, resurrection, ascension, and seating in Heaven (so that believers are co-crucified, co-risen, co-ascended, and seated with Christ in Heaven), Spirit Baptism appears to be salvific. This agrees with Romans 6 where baptism into Christ crucifies the Old Man. Translating eis as because of, though I believe endorsed by Mantey of Dana & Mantey fame (Syntax text), is a difficult translation for eis (into, unto literally). Eis makes good sense in its normal meaning with Repent & be baptized. The Repentance (metanoia, change from nonbelief to belief) will have 2 results: 1) the Spirit baptism and 2) the remission of sins. It is repentance which results in both this baptism and the remission of sins.
"Hit yourself in the nose and be bruised." I don't think it is hard to find examples where and (kai) joins a 2nd verb which is the result of the first verb. "Repent and be baptized," then is understood as Repent causing the be baptized. Taking this baptism to be Spirit baptism makes more sense than water baptism when you view the baptism as the result of the repentance. We know that all who repent are Spirit baptized.
So try my interpretation on for size, at least:
Repent is the essential factor. Spirit baptism results from that repentance as does remission of sins.
I think it possible, but less likely that Acts 2:38 means that the whole process of repent & Spirit baptism leads to remission of sins.
But I think if you investigate, you may realize that ad sensum constructions are common. (You may wish to Google ad sensum). The same group can be referred to differently.
Since the Baptism of the Spirit puts one into the Body of Christ, with the understanding that this baptism places the believer into Christ in His crucifixion, resurrection, ascension, and seating in Heaven (so that believers are co-crucified, co-risen, co-ascended, and seated with Christ in Heaven), Spirit Baptism appears to be salvific. This agrees with Romans 6 where baptism into Christ crucifies the Old Man. Translating eis as because of, though I believe endorsed by Mantey of Dana & Mantey fame (Syntax text), is a difficult translation for eis (into, unto literally). Eis makes good sense in its normal meaning with Repent & be baptized. The Repentance (metanoia, change from nonbelief to belief) will have 2 results: 1) the Spirit baptism and 2) the remission of sins. It is repentance which results in both this baptism and the remission of sins.
"Hit yourself in the nose and be bruised." I don't think it is hard to find examples where and (kai) joins a 2nd verb which is the result of the first verb. "Repent and be baptized," then is understood as Repent causing the be baptized. Taking this baptism to be Spirit baptism makes more sense than water baptism when you view the baptism as the result of the repentance. We know that all who repent are Spirit baptized.
So try my interpretation on for size, at least:
Repent is the essential factor. Spirit baptism results from that repentance as does remission of sins.
I think it possible, but less likely that Acts 2:38 means that the whole process of repent & Spirit baptism leads to remission of sins.
A
you are just saying things. Where are your scriptures to back all this up. You're the first to demand everyone gives you a scripture for everything said but you did not do the same. I guess you think you are above being asked to prove something
never mind, don't waste your time. Although posting a zillion scriptures on this forum in gigantic letters, you still haven't proved your false doctrine. Wonder why that is?
never mind, don't waste your time. Although posting a zillion scriptures on this forum in gigantic letters, you still haven't proved your false doctrine. Wonder why that is?
I gave you quotes from Greek scholars that confirmed my position and refuted your position. As Greek scholar AT Robertson said - 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. Amen! That aligns perfectly with (Acts 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31).
Again, The Greek rule regarding agreement between verbs and pronouns requires that the remission of sins be connected with repentance, not with baptism.
The fundamental question is this - to which verb, the verb "repent," or the verb "be baptized," does the prepositional phrase "for the remission of your sins" refer to or connect? That is the $64,000 question.
First, lets talk about the ANTECEDENT OF humon or the pronoun "your" in English. What is the antecedent of this pronoun? In order to answer this, we must first note that there are two main clauses preceding the prepositional phrase.
Though both leading clauses are imperatives, they are not identical, for the first clause, "repent ye" (including both verb and pronoun), is second person plural, while the second clause, "each one of you be baptized" (including both verb and pronoun), is third person singular. Thus, there is a change of both person and number between the verbs and pronouns in these two clauses.
In the prepositional phrase, "for the remission or YOUR sins," the pronoun “your” is second person plural. The effect of this change from second person plural to third person singular, and then back again to second person plural, shows that the phrase connects directly with the command to “repent.”
Essentially what you have is - “You (plural) repent for the forgiveness of your (plural) sins, and let each one (singular) of you be baptized (singular).” Or, “You all repent for the forgiveness of all of your sins, and let each one of you be baptized.”
Acts 2:38 has two occurrences of the pronoun "your" or "humon"; both are second person plural in the genitive case. The first occurs in the phrase "each of you," in which humon functions as a partitive genitive, indicating the group from which each person derives. The second occurrence is in the phrase "for the remission of your sins," in which humon is a subjective genitive indicating whose sins are involved in the remission.
The basic rule of concord, in Greek, stipulates that a personal pronoun (in this case humon) agrees with its antecedent in gender and number.
The concord between verb and pronoun requires that the remission of sins be connected with repentance, not with baptism.
“You all repent for the forgiveness of all of your sins, and (parenthetical) let each one of you be baptized” does not connect them both with the remission of sins. Does "baptism of repentance for the remission of sins" (Mark 1:4) mean that baptism is in order to obtain the remission of sins or that baptism is in reference to the remission of sins received upon repentance? Be careful, this was under the old law.
Again, in the prepositional phrase, "for the remission or YOUR sins," the pronoun “your” is second person plural. The effect of this change from second person plural to third person singular, and then back again to second person plural, shows that the phrase connects directly with the command to “repent.”
Essentially what you have is - “You (plural) repent for the forgiveness of your (plural) sins, and let each one (singular) of you be baptized (singular).” Or, “You all repent for the forgiveness of all of your sins, and let each one of you be baptized.”
You can't really prove anything to someone who only hears what they want to hear, as you have consistently demonstrated. You only seem to listen to what "your church" tells you. It's the same with Roman Catholics and Mormons. In the case of baptism and salvation, the Bible is clear that salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ and is not by works (Ephesians 2:8,9; Titus 3:5; 2 Timothy 1:9). So, any interpretation which comes to the conclusion that baptism, or any other work in addition to faith, is necessary for salvation is a faulty interpretation. Acts 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31 is not in harmony with your water gospel. You need to harmonize scripture with scripture before reaching your conclusion instead of distorting and perverting passages of scripture in an effort to "patch together" your so called gospel plan.
Again, The Greek rule regarding agreement between verbs and pronouns requires that the remission of sins be connected with repentance, not with baptism.
The fundamental question is this - to which verb, the verb "repent," or the verb "be baptized," does the prepositional phrase "for the remission of your sins" refer to or connect? That is the $64,000 question.
First, lets talk about the ANTECEDENT OF humon or the pronoun "your" in English. What is the antecedent of this pronoun? In order to answer this, we must first note that there are two main clauses preceding the prepositional phrase.
Though both leading clauses are imperatives, they are not identical, for the first clause, "repent ye" (including both verb and pronoun), is second person plural, while the second clause, "each one of you be baptized" (including both verb and pronoun), is third person singular. Thus, there is a change of both person and number between the verbs and pronouns in these two clauses.
In the prepositional phrase, "for the remission or YOUR sins," the pronoun “your” is second person plural. The effect of this change from second person plural to third person singular, and then back again to second person plural, shows that the phrase connects directly with the command to “repent.”
Essentially what you have is - “You (plural) repent for the forgiveness of your (plural) sins, and let each one (singular) of you be baptized (singular).” Or, “You all repent for the forgiveness of all of your sins, and let each one of you be baptized.”
Acts 2:38 has two occurrences of the pronoun "your" or "humon"; both are second person plural in the genitive case. The first occurs in the phrase "each of you," in which humon functions as a partitive genitive, indicating the group from which each person derives. The second occurrence is in the phrase "for the remission of your sins," in which humon is a subjective genitive indicating whose sins are involved in the remission.
The basic rule of concord, in Greek, stipulates that a personal pronoun (in this case humon) agrees with its antecedent in gender and number.
The concord between verb and pronoun requires that the remission of sins be connected with repentance, not with baptism.
“You all repent for the forgiveness of all of your sins, and (parenthetical) let each one of you be baptized” does not connect them both with the remission of sins. Does "baptism of repentance for the remission of sins" (Mark 1:4) mean that baptism is in order to obtain the remission of sins or that baptism is in reference to the remission of sins received upon repentance? Be careful, this was under the old law.
Again, in the prepositional phrase, "for the remission or YOUR sins," the pronoun “your” is second person plural. The effect of this change from second person plural to third person singular, and then back again to second person plural, shows that the phrase connects directly with the command to “repent.”
Essentially what you have is - “You (plural) repent for the forgiveness of your (plural) sins, and let each one (singular) of you be baptized (singular).” Or, “You all repent for the forgiveness of all of your sins, and let each one of you be baptized.”
You can't really prove anything to someone who only hears what they want to hear, as you have consistently demonstrated. You only seem to listen to what "your church" tells you. It's the same with Roman Catholics and Mormons. In the case of baptism and salvation, the Bible is clear that salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ and is not by works (Ephesians 2:8,9; Titus 3:5; 2 Timothy 1:9). So, any interpretation which comes to the conclusion that baptism, or any other work in addition to faith, is necessary for salvation is a faulty interpretation. Acts 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31 is not in harmony with your water gospel. You need to harmonize scripture with scripture before reaching your conclusion instead of distorting and perverting passages of scripture in an effort to "patch together" your so called gospel plan.
I don't think that is a complete conclusion. Christ is able to save because He is God and is able to impute His righteousness to everyone who has the right heart attitude toward Him. OT law could only kill it could never give life. OT people were saved by grace just like NT people. OT looked for the coming of Messiah while the NT looks back on His coming. It has always been and always will be salvation by grace through faith. Faith from believing Gods word.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
For the cause of Christ
Roger
Thank you homwardbound! God bless you. I have been following this thread and it makes me sad to see people bickering over something that is so so special. And, I don't want to stir - but it is something I wish God will bless others with. I know I am happy He did it for me! 
How many go to work willingly, excited about it?
yes many at first, how long does that last?
And God is not of this world is God, there is a joy in the Lord that you tried to explain, and it is really unexplainable, yet is.
No person can fathom it, until the Lord opens it and imputed it in
Now many are saying water Baptism does this, and that is the only way
And I say how can that be when Peter was being used by God in Acts 10, where the born again Holy Spirit of truth came upon the Cornelius's family with out water Baptism, even though they got water Baptized afterwards, they were already Baptized in Spirit and truth, and in Acts 11. peter finally saw, and stated as he mulled it over, seeing they were not water Baptized and the Spirit of God came upon them anyway.
And Peter said then that he perceives God has no respect of persons.
Then there was Paul in Acts who came across persons that only knew of John's water Baptism, and not the Holy Ghost, and Paul lays hands on them to receive the Holy Ghost
John the Baptist even said himself that Christ who came after him was to decrease, (John's water Baptism) and Christ's (Spirit baptism) was to increase
Also in Acts 1:5 John truly Baptized with water, but not many days hence, you will be Baptized with the Holy Spirit and with fire
Nothing wrong with wanting and getting water Baptized, nothing except ones reason for doing it. And I first did it for acceptance to that place where I worshiped, wantinf to be a part of that group, and that was their requirement, using God as the Catalyst. They were kind of like being in Moses's seat, being all religous and not doing it rightfully like the Pharisees that Jesus Spoke of
Now I have nothing against them or anyone, just aware, and I have nothing against anyone, because I see God through Son having nothing against me, so I water Baptized after receiving the gift of new life in Spirit and truth as a good conscience towards God alone
Whom were the ones in Acts 10, being saved? Acts 2 were ones that believed and did as they believed, the same as those in Acts 10, except in Acts Ten water Baptism followed where as Acts 2 water Baptism followed to receive Gift of gift
And where as in Acts 10 they received the gift first of life, that most important one of all
There is no life new, without being born again, as Jesus told Nicodemus, so whether one is water Baptized before or after, without the Holy Spirit of God it is meaningless the same as doing anything here in this world without God, 1 Cor 13:1-3
And where as in Acts 10 they received the gift first of life, that most important one of all
There is no life new, without being born again, as Jesus told Nicodemus, so whether one is water Baptized before or after, without the Holy Spirit of God it is meaningless the same as doing anything here in this world without God, 1 Cor 13:1-3