Acts 2:38 and Baptismal Regeneration Refuted

[mailmandan]

Jesus never used the word work in connection with baptism. He simply told John that being baptized was part of fulfilling righteousness.

Since water baptism stood between Jesus fulfilling all righteousness and not fulfilling all righteousness, then what do we call the accomplished act? A work of righteousness or a work of unrighteousness? Is work accomplished when one gets water baptized or is no work accomplished at all?

I cannot understand peoples preoccupation with trying to classify baptism as a 'work' in order to marginalize its importance. Scripture never calls it a work.

If water baptism is not a work, then what is it? Just a nothing?

 

[dcontroversal]

Jesus never used the word work in connection with baptism. He simply told John that being baptized was part of fulfilling righteousness. I cannot understand peoples preoccupation with trying to classify baptism as a 'work' in order to marginalize its importance. Scripture never calls it a work.

Maybe because you believe in baptismal regeneration and are bias toward that particular teaching?.......

 

[dcontroversal]

Amen! By Jesus getting water baptized, it was a part of Him "fulfilling all righteousness" (Matthew 3:15). If water baptism stands between Jesus fulfilling all righteousness and not fulfilling all righteousness, then water baptism is clearly a "work of righteousness."

I agree and will add.....was Jesus a SON of GOD by BIRTH (HOLY SPIRIT) or by water immersion......

My bible teaches me by BIRTH and the ACT of IMMERSION IDENTIFIED HIM AS SUCH.....pretty elementary to me....too many people get wrapped around the axle and go to seed on something that is not there for sure.......

 

[oldhermit]

Since water baptism stood between Jesus fulfilling all righteousness and not fulfilling all righteousness, then what do we call the accomplished act? A work of righteousness or a work of unrighteousness? Is work accomplished when one gets water baptized or is no work accomplished at all?

If water baptism is not a work, then what is it? Just a nothing?

Perhaps it would help if I understood you definition of work.

 

[oldhermit]

Maybe because you believe in baptismal regeneration and are bias toward that particular teaching?.......

Of course none of us like to think that our positions are a matter of bias. The truth is that everything we believe and accept as truth is a matter of bias. This is the simple truth of it. One can be biased toward truth or one can be biased toward error yet, no one willingly believes a lie if he knows it to a lie. This phenomenon is what is known in psychology as "privileged access," we all like to trust that what we hold as truth is indeed truth. I attempt to eliminate any bias as much as possible (I do not believe any of us will ever master this 100%) by examining the grammatical structure of any text. I am not interested in defending any particular doctrine. I am interested only in upholding the integrity of the text and at times that has meant that I have had to change my views on some things. I am not interested in who is right, I care only about WHAT is right. Having said this would you be interested in engaging with me in a little exegetical exorcise on Acts 2:38 from the Greek to see just what this text is saying?

 

[iamsoandso]

I think there are a host of questions to be answered about the process of baptism in water. John the baptist baptized many from the beginning of his ministry until he died and at the time he died Jesus was still alive,so were those who repented and were baptized by John "saved" by their actions(belief/repentance/baptism) before Christ had been crucified? And if they were saved by "Baptism/repentance/belief",,then is it possible to say that the work preformed by Jesus(crucifixion on the cross) is the actual work preformed that is the act that saved us?

Jesus himself went to and was baptized by John(before the cross) and if the act of water baptism is the "saving act" then was Christ himself in the need of "salvation"?,,,In (Acts 19;2-7) Paul addresses a group(about 12) asking them what baptism they were baptized with,they answered "Johns baptism"(acts 19;3) then Paul does something odd(so we would think) that is as if he viewed them as "not complete in something" ,,he "RE- BAPTIZES THEM" in the name of Jesus(Acts 19;5),,so these 12 had already "believed/repented/and were baptized(in water)",,,so what of their state/condition as to their "salvation",,,why did they need to do anything further if they had already "believed/repented/baptized"?

 

[oldhermit]

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.

Let me first address the first argument and later we can look at the other passages.

As a matter of fact, "repent and be baptize each one of you" do agree in both person and number. Here is the reading from the Byzantine text. I am not going to waste my time translating this for you because I am assuming you can read it for yourself. Πέτρος δὲ ἔφη πρὸς αὐτούς, Μετανοήσατε, καὶ βαπτισθήτω ἕκαστος ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν, καὶ λήψεσθε τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος.

What this says is:"Πέτρος δὲ ἔφη πρὸς αὐτούς (third person plural acc.), Μετανοήσατε (second person plural, imperative) καὶ βαπτισθήτω (third person singular, imperative) ἕκαστος ὑμῶν (second person plural, gen.) ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ εἰς ἄφεσιν (nominative singular) ἁμαρτιῶν (second person plural, gen.) καὶ λήψεσθε (second person plural, ind.) τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος." There is nothing remarkable or out of the ordinary about the grammatical syntax of this verse. He said the same thing to every one of those present laying down the same command to each one. Who was he speaking to? All of them, third person plural. Who did he command to repent? All of them, second person plural. Who did he command to be baptized? Every one of them second person plural. Although βαπτισθήτω is third person plural, imperative, it is modified by ἁμαρτιῶνwhich is second person plural, gen. Who would receive the remission of sins? Everyone who obeyed the imperatives to μετανοήσατε καὶ βαπτισθήτω. Who would receive the Holy Spirit as a gift? Everyone of them who obeyed the imperatives to μετανοήσατε καὶ βαπτισθήτω. The simple fact is that the reference point for the two imperatives and the future indicative produces exactly the same results at the same time.

 

[oldhermit]

Let me first address the first argument and later we can look at the other passages.

As a matter of fact, "repent and be baptize each one of you" do agree in both person and number. Here is the reading from the Byzantine text. I am not going to waste my time translating this for you because I am assuming you can read it for yourself. Πέτρος δὲ ἔφη πρὸς αὐτούς, Μετανοήσατε, καὶ βαπτισθήτω ἕκαστος ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν, καὶ λήψεσθε τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος.

What this says is:"Πέτρος δὲ ἔφη πρὸς αὐτούς (third person plural acc.), Μετανοήσατε (second person plural, imperative) καὶ βαπτισθήτω (third person singular, imperative) ἕκαστος ὑμῶν (second person plural, gen.) ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ εἰς ἄφεσιν (nominative singular) ἁμαρτιῶν (second person plural, gen.) καὶ λήψεσθε (second person plural, ind.) τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος." There is nothing remarkable or out of the ordinary about the grammatical syntax of this verse. He said the same thing to every one of those present laying down the same command to each one. Who was he speaking to? All of them, third person plural. Who did he command to repent? All of them, second person plural. Who did he command to be baptized? Every one of them second person plural. Although βαπτισθήτω is third person plural, imperative, it is modified by ἁμαρτιῶνwhich is second person plural, gen. Who would receive the remission of sins? Everyone who obeyed the imperatives to μετανοήσατε καὶ βαπτισθήτω. Who would receive the Holy Spirit as a gift? Everyone of them who obeyed the imperatives to μετανοήσατε καὶ βαπτισθήτω. The simple fact is that the reference point for the two imperatives and the future indicative produces exactly the same results at the same time.

I have a type-o on line three with ἄφεσιν and ἁμαρτιῶν. I do not know why I have an acc. feminine listed as a nominative singular and genitive. In fact, I do not even remember trying parse ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν when I wrote this. Her is the corrected paragraph.

What this says is:"Πέτρος δὲ ἔφη πρὸς αὐτούς (third person plural acc.), Μετανοήσατε (second person plural, imperative) καὶ βαπτισθήτω (third person singular, imperative) ἕκαστος ὑμῶν (second person plural, gen.) ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ εἰς ἄφεσιν (nominative singular) ἁμαρτιῶν καὶ λήψεσθε τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος." There is nothing remarkable or out of the ordinary about the grammatical syntax of this verse. He said the same thing to every one of those present laying down the same command to each one. Who was he speaking to? All of them, third person plural. Who did he command to repent? All of them, second person plural. Who did he command to be baptized? Every one of them second person plural. Although βαπτισθήτω is third person plural, imperative, it is modified by ἁμαρτιῶνwhich is second person plural, gen. Who would receive the remission of sins? Everyone who obeyed the imperatives to μετανοήσατε καὶ βαπτισθήτω. Who would receive the Holy Spirit as a gift? Everyone of them who obeyed the imperatives to μετανοήσατε καὶ βαπτισθήτω. The simple fact is that the reference point for the two imperatives and the future indicative produces exactly the same results at the same time.

 

[oldhermit]

Well rats!!! I still did not get the correction made. Let me try it again.

What this says is:"Πέτρος δὲ ἔφη πρὸς αὐτούς (third person plural acc.), Μετανοήσατε (second person plural, imperative) καὶ βαπτισθήτω (third person singular, imperative) ἕκαστος ὑμῶν (second person plural, gen.) ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν καὶ λήψεσθε τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος." There is nothing remarkable or out of the ordinary about the grammatical syntax of this verse. He said the same thing to every one of those present laying down the same command to each one. Who was he speaking to? All of them, third person plural. Who did he command to repent? All of them, second person plural. Who did he command to be baptized? Every one of them second person plural. Although βαπτισθήτω is third person plural, imperative, it is modified by ἁμαρτιῶνwhich is second person plural, gen. Who would receive the remission of sins? Everyone who obeyed the imperatives to μετανοήσατε καὶ βαπτισθήτω. Who would receive the Holy Spirit as a gift? Everyone of them who obeyed the imperatives to μετανοήσατε καὶ βαπτισθήτω. The simple fact is that the reference point for the two imperatives and the future indicative produces exactly the same results at the same time.

I apologize for the confusion.

 

[Atwood]

Jesus never used the word work in connection with baptism. He simply told John that being baptized was part of fulfilling righteousness. I cannot understand peoples preoccupation with trying to classify baptism as a 'work' in order to marginalize its importance. Scripture never calls it a work.

A work is a work is a work.
Water baptism is clearly a work. It is a human work. One man takes another man & dips him in water. On the other hand Spirit Baptism is a work, but not a human work; it is God's work.

Works are forbidden man as a mean of salvation.
But works are done & have been done by God for man's salvation.
Just think of the intense work done by the precious Lord Jesus, bearing our sins on the cross.
He sweat (as it were) great drops of blood just anticipating the horror that awaited Him.
Now that He has bought our salvation at such great cost to Himself,
it is folly to scorn His saving work on our behalf.
It is folly to scorn Him as Savior, and insist that He is but a chance-giver.

He tells us in His Word:

Thou shalt call His name Jesus, for
He shall save His people from their sins.

Now I trust in that. Can you not do the same?

 

[oldhermit]

A work is a work is a work.
Water baptism is clearly a work. It is a human work. One man takes another man & dips him in water. On the other hand Spirit Baptism is a work, but not a human work; it is God's work.

Works are forbidden man as a mean of salvation.
But works are done & have been done by God for man's salvation.
Just think of the intense work done by the precious Lord Jesus, bearing our sins on the cross.
He sweat (as it were) great drops of blood just anticipating the horror that awaited Him.
Now that He has bought our salvation at such great cost to Himself,
it is folly to scorn His saving work on our behalf.
It is folly to scorn Him as Savior, and insist that He is but a chance-giver.

He tells us in His Word:

Thou shalt call His name Jesus, for
He shall save His people from their sins.

Now I trust in that. Can you not do the same?

"A work is a work is a work." is not a definition. You have not defined what qualifies something as a work.

 

[Atwood]

ἕκαστος ὑμῶν (second person plural, gen.)

While you were being so meticulous, why did you not bother to say:

ἕκαστος (nominative, masculine singular) ὑμῶν (second person plural, gen.)

Do you realize that repent means change of mind (from unbelief to belief)?
And do you realize that the passage makes good sense as referring the the baptism of the Holy Spirit? Water is not mentioned. The context is Baptism of the Spirit & receiving the Holy Spirit -- not water.

Moreover, one may not interpret Acts 2:38 to contradict the multitude of only-believe passages which mention no baptism at all. Neither can one interpret water baptism as saving, since it is a human work (Eph 2).

There is but one MUST I DO to be saved, as Acts 16 tells us.
The Lord does not do false advertising.
Neither does the way of being saved by faith change in the Bible.

 

[Atwood]

I think there are a host of questions to be answered about the process of baptism in water. John the baptist baptized many from the beginning of his ministry until he died and at the time he died Jesus was still alive,so were those who repented and were baptized by John "saved" by their actions(belief/repentance/baptism) before Christ had been crucified? And if they were saved by "Baptism/repentance/belief",,then is it possible to say that the work preformed by Jesus(crucifixion on the cross) is the actual work preformed that is the act that saved us?

Jesus himself went to and was baptized by John(before the cross) and if the act of water baptism is the "saving act" then was Christ himself in the need of "salvation"?,,,In (Acts 19;2-7) Paul addresses a group(about 12) asking them what baptism they were baptized with,they answered "Johns baptism"(acts 19;3) then Paul does something odd(so we would think) that is as if he viewed them as "not complete in something" ,,he "RE- BAPTIZES THEM" in the name of Jesus(Acts 19;5),,so these 12 had already "believed/repented/and were baptized(in water)",,,so what of their state/condition as to their "salvation",,,why did they need to do anything further if they had already "believed/repented/baptized"?

Interesting musings, so&so.

Acts 19:

"4 And Paul said, John baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people that they should believe on him that should come after him, that is, on Jesus. 5 And when they heard this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. 7 And they were in all about twelve men."

There is no rebaptism here mentioned. No water is mentioned. They were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus, not "into water." I think you will find that whenever it is baptism in(to) the name of Jesus (no Trinity mentioned), the ref is not to water baptism, but Spirit baptism.

 

[oldhermit]

While you were being so meticulous, why did you not bother to say:

ἕκαστος (nominative, masculine singular) ὑμῶν (second person plural, gen.)

Because only ἕκαστος is nom, masc, sing. ὑμῶν is gen 2per pl. However, in my original format of this material i do parse both the adj. and the pronoun.

 

[iamsoandso]

lol,,,yep if I was the Savior(and I am not),,,,but if I was what ever I did to actually save humanity would then be scrutinized,,one group would(because of doubt),set about to preform an array of works they thought to be incomplete,,,,another group would rest and give thanks for the work I had done,,,the works will confess them in the end,the work of one is peace,and the other agony,,one will trust what I did and relax and give thanks and the other will set out to accomplish the thing thought not done by me.,,,,"why maketh thou unclean that which I have made clean?",,,,,,,why do you seek salvation,when it is given?,,,,,,

 

[iamsoandso]

Interesting musings, so&so.

Acts 19:

"4 And Paul said, John baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people that they should believe on him that should come after him, that is, on Jesus. 5 And when they heard this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. 7 And they were in all about twelve men."

There is no rebaptism here mentioned. No water is mentioned. They were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus, not "into water." I think you will find that whenever it is baptism in(to) the name of Jesus (no Trinity mentioned), the ref is not to water baptism, but Spirit baptism.

ahhh,,to address the o.p.,,,water,,,,"what did being baptized by John do?,what did they(the 12 achieve) if they were not yet saved?,,,why did Paul correct them?,,,,,that is if they had already preformed all required,,,,,,,

 

[iamsoandso]

ok I will leave for a while and let the discussion form,,,,,,,

 

[Atwood]

Because only ἕκαστος is nom, masc, sing. ὑμῶν is gen 2per pl. However, in my original format of this material i do parse both the adj. and the pronoun.

ἕκαστος is here a pronoun not an adjective; it is the subject of the verb & not the only singular word here; βαπτισθήτω is aorist passive imperative 2 person SINGULAR.

 

[Atwood]

ok I will leave for a while and let the discussion form,,,,,,,

LOL I expect the disgustion to go to pot.

 

[oldhermit]

ἕκαστος is here a pronoun not an adjective; it is the subject of the verb βαπτισθήτω aorist passive imperative 2 person SINGULAR.

Yes, that is why I did not parse it separately from ὑμῶν. Although ἕκαστος is in its self an adj. the fact that both ἕκαστος and ὑμῶν function as a modifier for βαπτισθήτω, I did not think it necessary to parse them separately. Do you this this was in error?