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

[oldhermit]

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

acts 2: 38 does not order people to get baptised in order to recieve remission. The greek does not allow it. Peter told everyone to repent. he only told those who received remission of sin to be baptized. proven by the fact, the next verse states those who believed (because they repented) were baptized.

EG, you and I have been over this before and to no avail. I am not sure you and I should even discuss this together.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

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

EG, you and I have been over this before and to no avail. I am not sure you and I should even discuss this together.

I directed it to the thread, not you.

 

[oldhermit]

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

I directed it to the thread, not you.

You are quite right EG. I did not notice that.

 

[SeaBass]

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

AT Robertson " One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not. My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission. So I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received. " AT Robertson. Word Pictures.

"In his massive Historical Grammar, Robertson suggested that sometimes “grammar” has to give way to “theology” (389). Is that any way to treat the verbally inspired word of God? Yet that is how Robertson sought to dispose of Acts 2:38. For shame!" W Jackson: https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1143-preposition-eis-in-acts-2-38-the

" J. R. Mantey contended for the “causal” sense of eis in Acts 2:38, though he classified that use of the preposition as a “remote meaning.” His discussion clearly indicated, however, that he yielded to that view because of his conviction that, if baptism was “for the purpose of the remission of sins,” then salvation would be of works, and not by faith (a false conclusion — see: H. E. Dana & J. R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, New York: Macmillan, 1955, 103-04)."
W. Jackson: https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/395-dallas-professor-rebuffs-common-quibble-on-eis

I see religious bias, nothing contextual in Acts 2:38, that leads to the causal definition erroneously given to eis. No Divine inspiration in theological biases.


Mt 26:28 "For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for (eis) the remission of sins."

Robertson is certain eis in MT 26:28 is look toward but not sure with the same phrase in Acts 2:38.
Christ did not shed His blood "because" sins were already remitted.

1 Tim 1:16 "Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to (eis) life everlasting."

Men do not believe on Christ "because" he already has everlasting life.


Acts 2:38 be baptized for remission of sins.
Col 2:11,12 another contextual proof baptism is the point God cuts away the body of sin/sins remitted.
Rev 1:5; Jn 19:34; Rom 6:2-7,16-18 Christ shed His blood in His death and it is baptism that puts one in Christ's death to have access to the blood that washes away sin..sins remitted. In baptism one becomes "dead" for he that is "dead" is freed from sin

 

[oldhermit]

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

I see religious bias, nothing contextual in Acts 2:38, that leads to the causal definition erroneously given to eis. No Divine inspiration in theological biases.

I think you have a typo here. Did you mean causal or casual? There is a very big difference.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

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

Don't you just love OP's who put up thread titles that shove a lie down your throat and then want to argue with you when you call them on it?

Movin' on ...

 

[SeaBass]

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

For Example

Act 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
Act 8:38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
Act 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
Act 16:15 And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.
Act 16:33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.
Act 18:8 And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.
Act 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Act 9:17-18 And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.

????? [If so, where are the scriptures that indicate it?]

Acts 22:16 "And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord."

It's NOT "...arise and be baptized, and because thy sins are already washed away, calling upon the name of the Lord."
I also find it interesting that "wash away" is imperative mood, middle voice....Saul was commanded to actively wash away his own sins. How would he go about obeying that command? How can man wash away his own sins, that is, "save thyself" cf Acts 2:40?

 

[Jeff_56]

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

[h=1] Acts 22:16Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)
[/h] [SUP]16 [/SUP]So now, what are you waiting for? Get up, immerse yourself and have your sins washed away as you call on his name.’

Complete Jewish Bible (CJB) Copyright © 1998 by David H. Stern. All rights reserved.



besides, most people never have their sins washed away. ever. they really don't care. (most people)

 

[SeaBass]

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

Acts 22:16Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)


[SUP]16 [/SUP]So now, what are you waiting for? Get up, immerse yourself and have your sins washed away as you call on his name.’

Complete Jewish Bible (CJB) Copyright © 1998 by David H. Stern. All rights reserved.



besides, most people never have their sins washed away. ever. they really don't care. (most people)

Baptism was the means by which Saul's sins were washed away/remitted.

 

[Jeff_56]

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

not quite. truth, realty, doesn't conform to us....

"Brothers and sisters, if you have seen baptism as a reality you naturally know what it is. The question of its being true or false, inward or outward, simply does not exist, because you see that to be baptized is to be buried and raised up together with Christ. Having seen this reality, can you refrain from proclaiming that baptism is indeed so big, so real, and so inclusive? As soon as a person is shown the reality, then that which is false can no longer exist. Suppose someone should say: “Now that I have been baptized, I hope I may be buried and then raised together with the Lord.” The one who could utter such a statement has not touched reality, since to him baptism is one thing and burial and resurrection are quite another. But that person who perceives spiritual reality knows what burial and resurrection are. Baptism is burial, baptism is also resurrection. They are one and the same thing.

Do you realize, brothers and sisters, that no one can ever perceive spiritual things with his eyes fixed on the material, that no one can ever think through to the spiritual with his brain? All spiritual matters have their realities. He who has touched reality questions no more. (Spiritual Reality and Obession, CFP white cover only, pp.7-8, by Watchman Nee)"

 

[SeaBass]

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

AT Robertson on Acts 22:16:

" It is possible, as in Acts 2:38, to take these words as teaching baptismal remission or salvation by means of baptism, but to do so is in my opinion a complete subversion of Paul‘s vivid and picturesque language."

 

[oldhermit]

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

Originally Posted by mailmandan

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

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.

Okay Dan, you have been very patient on this question and I appreciate it. It looks like things have sowed down some on the matter of εἰς so, if you would like to discuss the symmetry between these other passages and Acts 2 perhaps now would be a good time to look at this. If you would like, let's take just one passage at a time so the conversation can be kept to a manageable discussion. Where would like to begin?

 

[notuptome]

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

He tells us in the text - "It behooves us to fulfill all righteousness." Baptism is an act of righteousness.

Would that be righteousness under the law? I ask because our righteousness is now by faith in Christ.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[oldhermit]

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

Would that be righteousness under the law? I ask because our righteousness is now by faith in Christ.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Everything that took place up until the resurrection was under the period of the Law. The reason Jesus was baptized was not because he had sins to be removed but because this was what God sent John to do for all those of Israel. As part of that demographic Jesus complies with the baptism of John as all Israel was commanded to do. This is part of fulfilling all the Law of God. This fulfills righteousness.

 

[mailmandan]

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

He tells us in the text - "It behooves us to fulfill all righteousness." Baptism is an act of righteousness.

Yes, baptism is a work of righteousness and what did Paul say in Titus 3:5 about works of righteousness?

 

[notuptome]

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

Everything that took place up until the resurrection was under the period of the Law. The reason Jesus was baptized was not because he had sins to be removed but because this was what God sent John to do for all those of Israel. As part of that demographic Jesus complies with the baptism of John as all Israel was commanded to do. This is part of fulfilling all the Law of God. This fulfills righteousness.

Still fails to address the change into the NT where righteousness is no longer by the law but by grace through faith. God made Christ to be sin for us that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him. 2 Cor 5:21 This is not received by water baptism but by imputation through grace. Freely bestowed upon all who seek it.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[mailmandan]

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

Okay Dan, you have been very patient on this question and I appreciate it. It looks like things have sowed down some on the matter of εἰς so, if you would like to discuss the symmetry between these other passages and Acts 2 perhaps now would be a good time to look at this. If you would like, let's take just one passage at a time so the conversation can be kept to a manageable discussion. Where would like to begin?

Acts 10:43-47 is a good place to begin. People who teach that Acts 2:38 must mean that baptism is in order to obtain the remission of sins usually end up dismissing the fact that these Gentiles have clearly received "the gift of the Holy Spirit" and in addition the gift of tongues, which is only for the body of Christ "prior to being water baptized" yet they reduce this to merely receiving the gift of tongues.

 

[MarcR]

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

Perhaps you misunderstood what I said in post #27. Here is the post.



I can see nothing in this post that would lead you to believe that I would agree with 'in light of' or 'in recognition of as a viable translation of εἰς. The construction of the text does not present baptism as a recognition of something that has already occurred but as part of a process by which something is obtained. Forgiveness of sin is linked to two antecedents - Repentance and baptism. This text presents forgiveness then as resultant, not causal.

My error! I meant post #26.

oldhermit

Senior Member

Join DateJuly 28th, 2012Age60Posts5,088 Rep Power21
[h=2]

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

Originally Posted by MarcR

D. eis in a Logical Connection.

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

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

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

Yes, this is correct.​

 

[oldhermit]

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

My error! I meant post #26.

Okay, I got you. When I read that I saw 'in view of' as meaning looking forward toward something, not as looking back on it. That is why I agreed. I did not really pay that much attention to the scripture references you gave. If I had I would have recognized them. I guess that will teach me not to agree with something without fully reading what was said.

 

[oldhermit]

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

Still fails to address the change into the NT where righteousness is no longer by the law but by grace through faith. God made Christ to be sin for us that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him. 2 Cor 5:21 This is not received by water baptism but by imputation through grace. Freely bestowed upon all who seek it.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Yes, righteousness is no longer by the law and for the Gentile, it never was but this in no way negates the place or the importance that God has placed on baptism in the scripture. You are absolutely correct that acts of righteousness does not save us. This is a fundamental truth. What Paul tells us in Titus 3:5 is that God "saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit." But, in this he is not negating out obligation the works of righteousness. He is only confirming that it is not the works themselves by which we are saved.