Since Acts 2:38 teaches that the baptism commanded is "for the remission of sins,"

[tribesman]

Re: Since Acts 2:38 teaches that the baptism commanded is "for the remission of sins,

And Paul? was he a pseudo Christian?
I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name. (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. (1Co 1:14-17)


If water baptism brought about forgiveness I doubt Paul would have spoken so lightly about it.

I can't agree with you here. Absolutely Paul never spoke lightly about water baptism, just because he got off against the enthusiasts in Corinth he never saw water baptism as something less than what it is. Most references in the NT containing the term baptism do refer to water baptism. Let noone come to despise it as the spiritualists do.

 

[Jeff_56]

Re: Since Acts 2:38 teaches that the baptism commanded is "for the remission of sins,

Since Acts 2:38 teaches that the baptism commanded is "for the remission of sins," is there any reason to believe that any other cases of water baptism were practiced for any other reason
......
????? [If so, where are the scriptures that indicate it?]

you probably got a lot of replies not from scripture. there are billions of people, literally not figuratively, who follow the world , the world chruch, satan, and not the scriptures,
and a lot of them(up to 8 or 9 thousand at one time and maybe over 500 every day, not counting bots)
visit this forum, and some of them post .

i.e. yes, it is clear than a lot of different people, way more than believers in jesus, practiced baptism, before jesus time and afterward, and
only a few did so in jesus.

 

[MarcR]

Re: Since Acts 2:38 teaches that the baptism commanded is "for the remission of sins,

I would think you would know your Greek better than that Marc. εἰς never, never, never, expresses backward motion, always forward motion and is NEVER translated 'because of'.

D. eis in a Logical Connection.

1. Very occasionally
εἰς
states a reason, e.g., "in view of" in Ro 4:20; cf. Mt 12:41; 2 Co 10:16; Gal 6:4 where, after testing, the self, not others, must provide reason for boasting.
(from Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, abridged edition, Copyright © 1985 by William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. All rights reserved.)

NT:1519
C. 528' (Fritzsche). of the consideration influencing one to do anything:

εἰς
at the preaching of one, i. e. out of regard to the substance of his preaching, Mt 12:41;
(from Thayer's Greek Lexicon, PC Study Bible formatted Electronic Database. Copyright © 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)

 

[MarcR]

Re: Since Acts 2:38 teaches that the baptism commanded is "for the remission of sins,

I would think you would know your Greek better than that Marc. εἰς never, never, never, expresses backward motion, always forward motion and is NEVER translated 'because of'.

Bauer Arndt and Gingrich list the following uses of εἰς:

5. with respect to, in light of, inrecognition of

6. because of

I have this only in hardcopy.

 

[notuptome]

Re: Since Acts 2:38 teaches that the baptism commanded is "for the remission of sins,

This passage has nothing to do with water baptism. It is Holy Spirit baptism that is needed for the remission of sins. This passage is argued over and over again but it does not lend itself to the idea that water baptism is in fact an agent of the remission of sin. It is the Holy Spirit who is given at the time of salvation. It is by the Holy Spirit that we are sealed into Christ and preserved unto the day of redemption.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[oldhermit]

Re: Since Acts 2:38 teaches that the baptism commanded is "for the remission of sins,

D. eis in a Logical Connection.

1. Very occasionally
εἰς
states a reason, e.g., "in view of" in Ro 4:20; cf. Mt 12:41; 2 Co 10:16; Gal 6:4 where, after testing, the self, not others, must provide reason for boasting.
(from Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, abridged edition, Copyright © 1985 by William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. All rights reserved.)

NT:1519
C. 528' (Fritzsche). of the consideration influencing one to do anything:

εἰς
at the preaching of one, i. e. out of regard to the substance of his preaching, Mt 12:41;
(from Thayer's Greek Lexicon, PC Study Bible formatted Electronic Database. Copyright © 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Yes, this is correct.

 

[oldhermit]

Re: Since Acts 2:38 teaches that the baptism commanded is "for the remission of sins,

Bauer Arndt and Gingrich list the following uses of εἰς:

5. with respect to, in light of, inrecognition of

6. because of

I have this only in hardcopy.

I seem to be unable access the Bauer Arndt and Gingrich Lexicon so perhaps you could cut and past this information from their Lexicon. I am afraid I would have to see this in some written study by Bauer Arndt and Gingrich be for I will believe this represents their views on the use of εἰς in the NT. I have known a number of men over the years who were masters of the language and a couple who where had their PhD's in NT Greek and none of them have ever been willing to go out on a limb to confirm the casual use of εἰς, not one of them. If it is possible for εἰς to have a casual meaning, that is a backward movement, why is it that it is never translated anywhere in the NT by any group of translators in this way. Of the 1774 times this word in used in the NT, I cannot fine a single instance where it is ever translated in a casual form. It is ALWAYS translated as having forward motion. Perhaps if you know of a text that translates it in this way you could share it with me.

 

[BradC]

Re: Since Acts 2:38 teaches that the baptism commanded is "for the remission of sins,

I am not understanding what any of this has to do with Acts 2:38 or what I said about the use of εἰς.

It's about baptism. Use some discernment concerning baptism and the relationship to the 'remission of sins'.

 

[oldhermit]

Re: Since Acts 2:38 teaches that the baptism commanded is "for the remission of sins,

It's about baptism. Use some discernment concerning baptism and the relationship to the 'remission of sins'.

I am asking a grammatical question from the selected text concerning the use of εἰς in this verse that was brought up earlier. Do you have anything to add on this?

 

[Jeff_56]

Re: Since Acts 2:38 teaches that the baptism commanded is "for the remission of sins,

This passage has nothing to do with water baptism. It is Holy Spirit baptism that is needed for the remission of sins. This passage is argued over and over again but it does not lend itself to the idea that water baptism is in fact an agent of the remission of sin. It is the Holy Spirit who is given at the time of salvation. It is by the Holy Spirit that we are sealed into Christ and preserved unto the day of redemption.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

i agree with most parts of most of your posts, and/or/however can you show anywhere in scripture or anywhere else for that matter
that says that the immersion (baptism) in the holy spirit occurs or specifically HAS TO OCCUR before being forgiven or at the same time as being forgiven.
what i remember from scripture is that there were many times people were forgiven individually or bigger picture(the nation) that had no connection, and no occurrence even, of being immersed in the holy spirit, and if it is any different, being full or made full to overflowing or being filled with the ruach ha-kodash - breath of yahweh.

shalom in yahshua today and forever !

 

[mailmandan]

Re: Since Acts 2:38 teaches that the baptism commanded is "for the remission of sins,

I have great respect for A. T. Robertson as a Greek scholar but this is one time he has simply missed it. Even his colleague Daniel Wallace who did not believe that baptism was essential for the forgiveness of sin disagreed with Robertson on this point and rightly so.

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 (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. So neither AT Robertson or Daniel Wallace agree that water baptism is what obtains the remission of sins.

 

[oldhermit]

Re: Since Acts 2:38 teaches that the baptism commanded is "for the remission of sins,

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 (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. So neither AT Robertson or Daniel Wallace agree that water baptism is what obtains the remission of sins.

As I said, Wallace did not believe that baptism was connected with the forgiveness but, he also confirmed the singularly forward direction of εἰς and in this he stood in disagreement with Robertson.

 

[mailmandan]

Re: Since Acts 2:38 teaches that the baptism commanded is "for the remission of sins,

D. eis in a Logical Connection.

1. Very occasionally
εἰς
states a reason, e.g., "in view of" in Ro 4:20; cf. Mt 12:41; 2 Co 10:16; Gal 6:4 where, after testing, the self, not others, must provide reason for boasting.
(from Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, abridged edition, Copyright © 1985 by William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. All rights reserved.)

NT:1519
C. 528' (Fritzsche). of the consideration influencing one to do anything:

εἰς
at the preaching of one, i. e. out of regard to the substance of his preaching, Mt 12:41;
(from Thayer's Greek Lexicon, PC Study Bible formatted Electronic Database. Copyright © 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)

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

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

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

In Abbott-Smith, A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament; Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament, and Dana & Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, we find very similar meanings.

E. Calvin Beisner - In short, the most precise English translation of the relevant clauses, arranging them to reflect the switches in person and number of the verbs, would be, “You (plural) repent for the forgiveness of your (plural) sins, and let each one (singular) of you be baptized (singular)….” Or, to adopt our Southern dialect again, “Y’all repent for the forgiveness of y’all’s sins, and let each one of you be baptized….”

When I showed this translation to the late Julius Mantey, one of the foremost Greek grammarians of the twentieth century and co-author of A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (originally published in 1927), he approved and even signed his name next to it in the margin of my Greek New Testament.

These arguments, lexical and grammatical, stand independently. Even if one rejects both lexical meanings of for, he still must face the grammatical argument, and even if he rejects the grammatical conclusion, he still must face the lexical argument.

Does Acts 2:38 prove baptismal remission? No, it doesn’t even support it as part of a cumulative case.

 

[oldhermit]

Re: Since Acts 2:38 teaches that the baptism commanded is "for the remission of sins,

This is without a doubt the most controversial text in all of scripture. There are all kinds of ways this text has been tortured in order to marginalize the importance of baptism. All sorts of grammatical gymnastics have been employed in an attempt to overturn the grammatical structure of this text. The reason is quite simply because the language of this text does not fit the soteriology of the evangelical community. One of the most scholarly attempts at marginalizing this text is the attempt at a rewording of the Greek text itself. If the immediate force of the grammatical structure of this text was not so soundly constructed why have there been so many attempts to reorganize the grammar in order to make the grammar conform to a particular soteriology?

 

[mailmandan]

Re: Since Acts 2:38 teaches that the baptism commanded is "for the remission of sins,

As I said, Wallace did not believe that baptism was connected with the forgiveness but, he also confirmed the singularly forward direction of εἰς and in this he stood in disagreement with Robertson.

Interesting. So even looking forward, Acts 2:38 does not necessarily have to mean that water baptism is what obtains the remission of sins, as Daniel Wallace points out. How do you harmonize your interpretation of Acts 2:38 with Acts 3:19; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31? This is what ultimately decides it for me. Scripture MUST harmonize with Scripture or else we have a contradiction and there can be no contradictions in God's Word.

 

[mailmandan]

Re: Since Acts 2:38 teaches that the baptism commanded is "for the remission of sins,

This is without a doubt the most controversial text in all of scripture. There are all kinds of ways this text has been tortured in order to marginalize the importance of baptism. All sorts of grammatical gymnastics have been employed in an attempt to overturn the grammatical structure of this text. The reason is quite simply because the language of this text does not fit the soteriology of the evangelical community. One of the most scholarly attempts at marginalizing this text is the attempt at a rewording of the Greek text itself. If the immediate force of the grammatical structure of this text was not so soundly constructed why have there been so many attempts to reorganize the grammar in order to make the grammar conform to a particular soteriology?

There are certain dispensationalists that would argue, AND I QUOTE (I'M NOT SAYING THIS IS MY VIEW) - Acts 2:38 is probably one of the most misunderstood verses in the Bible. Take time now to read Acts 2:22-40. In Acts 2:22, Peter was the speaker and he was addressing "ye men of Israel." No other group is mentioned. He told of Jesus' earthly ministry (vs 22) and pointed out that they crucified him (vs 23). In vs 24 he proclaimed the resurrection and then freely quoted Psalms 16:8-11 in verses 25-28. The "men and brethren" of vs 29 were Israelites, and Peter again proclaimed the resurrection, and added Jesus' exaltation, and quoted Psalm 110 as an explanation in verses 34 and 35. Now vs 36 again identifies his audience as "all the house of Israel." This was made clear. Jesus himself said: Matthew 10:5-6 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: 6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Matthew 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. In Acts 2:36-37, "Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart." That "they" is JEWS not Gentiles. Then, in Acts 2:38, Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Those Pentecostal Jews were baptized in water to receive the Holy Ghost. And even though vs 39 is quoted to prove otherwise, that is not how one receives the Holy Ghost today. Verse 39, For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. The "you" is obviously Jews and the "your children" must be Jews, but what about "all that are afar off?" Peter quoted the Old Testament all through Acts 2 and he did again. Daniel 9:7a "O Lord, righteousness belongeth unto thee, but unto us confusion of faces, as at this day; to the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and unto all Israel, that are near, and that are far off..." Those "afar off" are Jews too! The entire setting of Acts 2 is Jewish. If that doesn't clinch the time element, look at the last part of verse 40. "Save yourselves from this untoward generation." This untoward "generation" is Jewish. They were responsible for the crucifixion. They placed themselves under condemnation (Matthew 27:25.) A person today isn't saved "from this untoward generation." The time of "this" generation is LONG PASSED! This is NOT the day of Pentecost, everyone isn't a Jew whose specific generation crucified Christ, and the Lord is not dealing with the Israelites as a nation now (Matthew 21:43; Acts 10:34,35) as he was then. Even if a person was a full-blooded Jew today, he couldn't get back under those circumstances because they have passed! Acceptance into the Earthly Kingdom promised to Israel required faith and water baptism. However Israel rejected the Kingdom, even after the resurrection of their King - The Lord Jesus Christ. When they did, God set Israel (as a nation) aside and postponed that promised Kingdom. This is what Romans 11:11,12,15, & 25 is about. Rather than God sending the prophesied judgement of the tribulation upon them, He set that Kingdom program aside and began a NEW AGE which was never prophesied to come. It is referred to as "THE MYSTERY" and is called "THE AGE OF GRACE" - see Ephesians 3:1-11 and Colossians 1:24-27.

Have you ever heard this interpretation of Acts 2:38?

 

[MarcR]

Re: Since Acts 2:38 teaches that the baptism commanded is "for the remission of sins,

I seem to be unable access the Bauer Arndt and Gingrich Lexicon so perhaps you could cut and past this information from their Lexicon. I am afraid I would have to see this in some written study by Bauer Arndt and Gingrich be for I will believe this represents their views on the use of εἰς in the NT. I have known a number of men over the years who were masters of the language and a couple who where had their PhD's in NT Greek and none of them have ever been willing to go out on a limb to confirm the casual use of εἰς, not one of them. If it is possible for εἰς to have a casual meaning, that is a backward movement, why is it that it is never translated anywhere in the NT by any group of translators in this way. Of the 1774 times this word in used in the NT, I cannot fine a single instance where it is ever translated in a casual form. It is ALWAYS translated as having forward motion. Perhaps if you know of a text that translates it in this way you could share it with me.

I cut out the page, scanned it and taped it back good as new (almost)

 

[oldhermit]

Re: Since Acts 2:38 teaches that the baptism commanded is "for the remission of sins,

Interesting. So even looking forward, Acts 2:38 does not necessarily have to mean that water baptism is what obtains the remission of sins, as Daniel Wallace points out. How do you harmonize your interpretation of Acts 2:38 with Acts 3:19; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31? This is what ultimately decides it for me. Scripture MUST harmonize with Scripture or else we have a contradiction and there can be no contradictions in God's Word.

Wallace is offering a personal soteriological position that stands contrary to the grammatical structure of the text. If εἰς points backward then baptism is in response to an already obtained forgiveness. If εἰς is directionally fixed in a forward position then the text presents forgiveness of sin as an result of baptism, no matter how one may think of this in connection with another passage. If Peter had wanted to infer backward action in immersion he could have simply chosen between three prepositions that would have satisfied that direction – ὅτι or perhaps even περὶ (about, concerning), he could have even used ὑπὲρ which in the accusative means above but in other usage it is sometimes translated 'because of', 'concerning,' or on behalf of, but Peter did not choose either of these terms. He specifically selected εἰς because of its singularly directional motion. Immersion into Jesus Christ then, is a transference of a person into the removal of sin. If you like, I can discuss the soteriological implications later. Right now all I am trying to do is establish the force of this verse from the point of the grammar. Truth lies in the grammatical structure of the text, not in one's interpretation of the text.

 

[oldhermit]

Re: Since Acts 2:38 teaches that the baptism commanded is "for the remission of sins,

Interesting. So even looking forward, Acts 2:38 does not necessarily have to mean that water baptism is what obtains the remission of sins, as Daniel Wallace points out. How do you harmonize your interpretation of Acts 2:38 with Acts 3:19; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31? This is what ultimately decides it for me. Scripture MUST harmonize with Scripture or else we have a contradiction and there can be no contradictions in God's Word.

I will get to these other passages later. Right now, we have not even come to any kind of an agreement on this verse yet. The first step in any exegetical exorcise is to establish what the grammatical structure reveals. Always begin with the grammar and then move to the textual comparisons.

 

[Jeff_56]

Re: Since Acts 2:38 teaches that the baptism commanded is "for the remission of sins,

jesus says to everyone "repent and be immersed in the name of jesus christ for the remission of your sins" when people are cut to the heart in conviction by the spirit of yahweh and cry out what can they do to be saved.

if someone's not cut to the heart, not repentant (or even sorry ) for their sinful life, or not seeking yahweh's kingdom, not crying out to him for his help,

then it really doesn't matter what they do - they remain lost and dead in their sin and trespasses and apart from yahshua hamashiach and his life and his body.