You have already said one repents BEFORE he believes now you are saying the atheist must believe then repent.
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.
No reason for an unbelieving atheist to change his mind while in unbelief.
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).
You posted: One must believe in God before they can repent and believe the gospel.
Before you were arguing one must repent THEN believe, now you have reversed your course on this.
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?
I will not take the rest of my day responding to all of this but the singular-plural argument on Acts 2:38 is not valid argument as I already shown. Bottom line, the conjunction "and" will not allow you to separate "repent" from "baptized" as you are trying so hard to do. If baptism is not for remission of sins then the "and" means repentance is not for remission of sins.
Here is what Greek scholars have to say about the singular-plural of Acts 2:38 - with many if not all of those scholars not believing water baptism saves:
http://lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVanswers/2007/03-17d.htm
There it is. The church of Christ. I see that you continue to "parrot off" what your predecessors before you have taught.
So baptism in Acts 2:38 is not "parenthectical as you are trying to make it.
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)