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

[MarcR]

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

Paul says there is and you say there is not, who do you think I should believe? Here is a list of things Paul declares exist in singular proportion, "There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call— one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all," To the same degree there is only one God, one faith, one hope, one body, and one Spirit, there is also ONE baptism. You need to stop trying to qualify what Paul said and just listen to what he said. Since Paul does not qualify any of these we have no right to do so either. It is obvious that you simply do not care what Paul says about this so there is really no point in you and I continuing to discuss this because I am going to continue to hold you feet over the fire on this issue. You simply refuse to acknowledge what Paul says here. I will give you the last word on this and then I will waste no further time on you in this matter.

oldhermit,

There is indeed one baptism, which, IMO, is baptism of the Holy Spirit. IMO water baptism is simply a figure of Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection; in which we witness to our participation through the ordinance of baptism.

This post has persuaded me that baptism is essential to salvation; not water baptism but baptism of the Holy Spirit, whereby the Holy Spirit indwells believers.

 

[SeaBass]

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

1 Corinthians 1:17
For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.

Funny how as if baptism was part of the gospel as you claim it is (being it is essential) that paul was sent to save the gentile people. yet was not sent to do the very thing which could save them. Also funny how he claimed baptism is NOT a part of the gospel.

Nice try though

1) Christ's great commission of Mt 28:19,20; Mk 16:15,16 commissions all disciples (including Paul), to go, teach and baptize so you are creating a contradiction with a mis-interpretation of the verse.

2) the verse uses a figure of speech called an ellipsis a "not-but statement" where emphasis is put on one thing (preaching) over another (baptizing) but not to the exclusion of either.

Similar use of this figure of speech:

Peter, speaking about wives, said "Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price." 1 Pet 3:3,4.

Did Peter literally mean wives are to NOT put on apparel or was he figuratively putting emphasis on the inward adorning over the outward adorning but not to the exclusion of either?

3) Paul did baptize, 1 Cor 14,16 so if he was sent not to baptize did he sin when he DID baptize?

4) 1 Cor 1:13 Paul used both the crucifixtion and being baptized in the name of Christ to be "OF" CHrist.

 

[oldhermit]

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

oldhermit,

There is indeed one baptism, which, IMO, is baptism of the Holy Spirit. IMO water baptism is simply a figure of Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection; in which we witness to our participation through the ordinance of baptism.

This post has persuaded me that baptism is essential to salvation; not water baptism but baptism of the Holy Spirit, whereby the Holy Spirit indwells believers.

Thank you for answering this question. Now allow me to ask another. If there is indeed only one baptism as Paul declares and if that one baptism is Holy Spirit baptism, then why did the apostles continue to teach and practice water baptism? If the H.S. is the one baptism then they were practicing a baptism that was no longer valid. If there is only one, then why do they practice two?

 

[notuptome]

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

Thank you for answering this question. Now allow me to ask another. If there is indeed only one baptism as Paul declares and if that one baptism is Holy Spirit baptism, then why did the apostles continue to teach and practice water baptism? If the H.S. is the one baptism then they were practicing a baptism that was no longer valid. If there is only one, then why do they practice two?

Why do you purposely endeavor to misrepresent water baptism? In the Jewish religion there were many baptisms practiced. They were ritual washings in which a person would bathe himself before or as part of seeking forgiveness of the Lord. The High Priest himself would bathe before entering the holy part of the temple to offer sacrifices.

You are tormenting and perhaps causing to stumble those who are weaker in the faith. I really find your technique in using water baptism to provoke argument to be less than wise.

Water baptism for the Christian especially the Jewish Christian was a final baptism that severed all ties with the past. Many Jewish families today will strive with a family member who professes Christ as Messiah until they are water baptized. After that point they are considered dead some even going to the extreme of having a funeral for them.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[oldhermit]

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

Water baptism for the Christian especially the Jewish Christian was a final baptism that severed all ties with the past. Many Jewish families today will strive with a family member who professes Christ as Messiah until they are water baptized. After that point they are considered dead some even going to the extreme of having a funeral for them.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

This is precisely how Paul describes baptism in Romans 6 and Col 2.

 

[notuptome]

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

This is precisely how Paul describes baptism in Romans 6 and Col 2.

Which makes it neither required for salvation or applicable to Gentiles.

I do find it applicable to Gentiles in that they should bathe often for the sake of others who may be down wind of them.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[oldhermit]

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

Which makes it neither required for salvation or applicable to Gentiles.

I do find it applicable to Gentiles in that they should bathe often for the sake of others who may be down wind of them.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Then you are going to have to explain the conversion of the Eunuch in Acts 8 and Cornelius in chapter 10.

 

[notuptome]

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

Then you are going to have to explain the conversion of the Eunuch in Acts 8 and Cornelius in chapter 10.

Conversion and baptism are separate events. You have not made a point that their baptism was necessary or in any way contributed to their salvation. Their conversion was a result of hearing the word of God and responding to the Holy Spirit bringing them to Christ to receive grace by faith.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[oldhermit]

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

Conversion and baptism are separate events. You have not made a point that their baptism was necessary or in any way contributed to their salvation. Their conversion was a result of hearing the word of God and responding to the Holy Spirit bringing them to Christ to receive grace by faith.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

You said water baptism was not applicable to the Gentiles. These are only two of the examples we have in Acts where Gentiles were baptized.

 

[dcontroversal]

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

It is rather simple at the end of the day......water immersion is called and or compared to a

1. LIKE FIGURE
2. Likeness

It is the PUBLIC profession of one's faith and STATES to the WORLD that which has already taken place inwardly by FAITH...IT states that YOU believe in the RESURRECTION of Jesus from the dead and is the OUTWARD identifier of inward conversion and being born again.....

Why is that so hard for some to grasp.......it is a picture of one dying to the old man, being buried with Christ and resurrected a NEW CREATION in Christ JESUS........

A man BELIEVES the GOSPEL...is SAVED, JUSTIFIED and SANCTIFIED in Christ (positionally) by FAITH and then states it to the world and identifies publically with Christ dia IMMERSION........

BE NOT REMOVED from the simplicity that is found IN CHRIST....

IT pleased GOD by the foolishness of preaching to save them that BELIEVE

If you BELIEVE in your heart (mind) that God has raised him from the dead thou shalt BE SAVED!

 

[mailmandan]

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

You know good and well Paul says there is only one baptism. You just do not like what he said because this challenges you to make a choice between the baptism of the Holy Spirit (which you do not understand and this is the reason for you position) and water baptism. There is a reason Paul says there is only one baptism.

I stand behind what I said in post #201. The truth is crystal clear to me. I understand the baptism of the Holy Spirit. I received the gift of the Holy Spirit on a Saturday night when I believed on the Lord Jesus Christ several years ago and knew without a doubt that I had been born again, yet was not able to get water baptized until Sunday morning, but was still saved prior to receiving water baptism the next morning. Believers continue to be baptized by one Spirit into one body (the body of Christ - 1 Corinthians 12:13). Spirit baptism has not ceased. I explained to you the reason why Paul said there is one baptism and it does not mean Spirit baptism no longer takes place and all we have left is water baptism or vise versa.

 

[oldhermit]

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

I stand behind what I said in post #201. The truth is crystal clear to me. I understand the baptism of the Holy Spirit. I received the gift of the Holy Spirit on a Saturday night when I believed on the Lord Jesus Christ several years ago and knew without a doubt that I had been born again, yet was not able to get water baptized until Sunday morning, but was still saved prior to receiving water baptism the next morning. Believers continue to be baptized by one Spirit into one body (the body of Christ - 1 Corinthians 12:13). Spirit baptism has not ceased. I explained to you the reason why Paul said there is one baptism and it does not mean Spirit baptism no longer takes place and all we have left is water baptism or vise versa.

Do you have any response to post #202?

 

[notuptome]

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

You said water baptism was not applicable to the Gentiles. These are only two of the examples we have in Acts where Gentiles were baptized.

Gentiles would not have had the same frame of reference toward water baptism as Jews.

Still it leaves you with no excuse for attempting to confuse conversion with baptism.

Is water baptism necessary for salvation? Is one completely saved and sealed unto eternal life without water baptism?

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[mailmandan]

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

I know that both Wallace and Robertson do not agree with my view on Acts 2:38. Now, I do not pretend to be a Greek scholar but I know enough abut the language to know how to follow the simple rules of grammar. I know Robertson makes an attempt at separating the two verbs and tries to argue this on the grounds that they do not agree in person and number. He even suggests that "for the remission of sins" may be parenthetical but Robertson is simply wrong here. Here is the argument that Robertson makes.

"Because the verbs "repent" and "receive" are both 2nd person plural forms, and "be baptized" is 3rd person singular, then the phrase "and be baptized...your sins" is a parenthetical expression separating the two main verbal ideas (repent & receive). Therefore, Peter is actually telling them to repent and they would then be able to receive the Holy Spirit, signifying their acceptance with God (Acts 10:44-48). Then, "because your sins have been [already] remitted, be baptized" as a witness to others of the fact."

I'm familiar with that argument. E Calvin Beisner makes this same type of argument:

The Grammatical Objection. 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.[SUP]6[/SUP] 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.
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. — E. Calvin Beisner

They said vs. you said. Who do you think that I'm going to believe? Their interpretation of Acts 2:38 is in harmony with Acts 3:19; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31 and your interpretation contradicts these passages of Scripture. That repentance is unto the remission of sins and baptism is parenthetical makes perfect sense in light of these passages of Scripture.

Robertson's treatment of this verse clearly demonstrates that he is approaching this verse from a soteriological bias rather than and as a linguistic scholar. His work in this passage is purely second rate and drew a great deal of criticism from his colleagues like Wallace, not only for his treatment of εἰς but for his attempted reconstruction of this verse. If even a second year Greek student can see through this then how obvious to you think it was to his peers? I take nothing away from Robertson as a linguistic scholar but this is a good example of one abandoning his scholarship in favor of a biased soteriology. Robertson KNOWS what this text says and he simply does not like what it says.

Robertson knows that Scripture must harmonize with other Scripture, namely, Acts 3:19; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31. Water baptism being for "in order to obtain" the remission of sins is in clear contradiction with these passages of Scripture, so something has to give.

This is why he goes trough all of these linguistic gymnastics to try to make it say something it simply does not say but in truth, he knows better than than this. Now, if you still feel Robertson is correct in this then I will be happy to defend the construction of the Greek as it appears in the text.

It would take a lot more gymnastics to twist the many many passages of Scripture that make it clear we are saved through belief/faith "apart from additions or modifications" and forcing these passages of Scripture to include water baptism. Multiple Greek scholars say that your interpretation of Acts 2:38 is not the only interpretation of the verse and "repentance unto the remission of sins" and baptism parenthetical is in harmony with Acts 3:19; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31 and that is good enough for me. Bottom line - Scripture MUST harmonize with Scripture. Christ's finished work of redemption is sufficient and complete. No supplements needed. Through faith, I trust exclusively in Jesus Christ as the ALL-sufficient means of my salvation and not in water and works.

 

[oldhermit]

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

Gentiles would not have had the same frame of reference toward water baptism as Jews.

And you base this on what?

Still it leaves you with no excuse for attempting to confuse conversion with baptism.

The simple truth is that water baptism occupies an integral part in the conversion process in all but five of the conversion examples. We are told explicitly in both Acts 2:38 as well as Acts 22:16 that water baptism is directly connected with the removal of sin and the receiving of the Holy Spirit.

Is water baptism necessary for salvation?

Decidedly yes.

Is one completely saved and sealed unto eternal life without water baptism?

I simply cannot see this based on the stress that the NT places on the purpose and function of water baptism.

What Does God Accomplish for Us in the Act of Baptism?
1. God takes away our sin, Acts 2: 28; 22:16, Romans 6:3, and Colossians 2:11. God removes that which prevents us from being reunited with God.
2. God brings us into Christ, Romans 6:3-6. This makes us his possession.
3. God clothes us with Christ, Galatians 3:27. We are now able to share in his righteousness.
4. God adds us to the body of Christ, 1Corinthians 12:13. He makes us part of a body of fellowship that God has called his people.
5. God makes us a new creature in Christ, Romans 6:3-21, Colossians 2:11-13. He has given us new life by destroying the old man of sin and recreating us in the image of God.
6. God frees us from the bondage of sin, Romans 6:3-21. We are now privileged to be servants of righteous and of the Most High God. We no longer have to be held in bondage to the sin that once enslaved us.
7. God saves us and gives us a clean conscience, 1Peter 3:18-21. We no longer have to be tormented in our minds because God has saved us from the sin that plagued our hearts.

What is it That Saves a Person?
There is a variety of elements the Bible speaks of as being part of the salvation process. These include:
1. Faith. “For by grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God.”  Ephesians. 2:8.
2. Belief. “And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved, and your house.”  Acts 16:31.
3. Confession. “For with the heart man believes unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.”  Romans 10:10.
4. Baptism. “The like figure unto which even baptism does also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”  1Peter 3:2.
5. Hope. “For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man sees, why does he yet hope for? But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.”  Romans 8:24-25.
6. Grace. “For by grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God.” Ephesians. 2:8
7. The gospel. “Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also you have received, and in which you stand; By which also you are saved, if you keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless you have believed in vain.”  1Corinthians. 15:1-2.
8. And even fear. “and others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.” Jude 23. It is not intended that anyone simply choose one of these elements and disregard the others. One cannot for instance, choose to only believe without any regard for confessing Jesus as Lord and Christ and declare himself saved. One cannot simply choose to be baptized and disregard faith and declare himself saved. Jesus said, “man lives by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.”  Matthew 4:4.

Faith, belief, confession, baptism, hope, grace and fear all have their divinely appointed function within the framework of salvation. To disregard or marginalize the importance of any one these elements represents a disregard for what God tells us in scripture. Any one of these alone will save no one. The exercise of all of them will save anyone. God has ordained all of these things to work together so man can “…be reconciled to God. For he has made him, who knew no sin, to be sin for us; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.”  2Corinthians 5:21-22.

We must remember that God offers us salvation on God’s terms, not ours. If we choose to deviate from the terms and conditions God has provided we can not hope to receive the benefits that are connected to them.

 

[notuptome]

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

The simple truth is that water baptism occupies an integral part in the conversion process in all but five of the conversion examples. We are told explicitly in both Acts 2:38 as well as Acts 22:16 that water baptism is directly connected with the removal of sin and the receiving of the Holy Spirit.
Decidedly yes.

We must remember that God offers us salvation on God’s terms, not ours. If we choose to deviate from the terms and conditions God has provided we can not hope to receive the benefits that are connected to them.

Galatians 1:7-9 Water baptism is another gospel not the gospel preached to men whereby they might be saved. There is no water baptism in grace. Salvation by grace involves the Holy Spirit, the word of God and the blood of Jesus Christ.

Grace cannot be conditioned upon man. Salvation is conditioned upon Gods grace.

Do you also subscribe to the no Holy Spirit dwelling in those souls who have been saved?

I'm very disappointed in you.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[oldhermit]

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

I'm familiar with that argument. E Calvin Beisner makes this same type of argument:

The Grammatical Objection. 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.[SUP]6[/SUP] 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.
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. — E. Calvin Beisner

They said vs. you said. Who do you think that I'm going to believe? Their interpretation of Acts 2:38 is in harmony with Acts 3:19; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31 and your interpretation contradicts these passages of Scripture. That repentance is unto the remission of sins and baptism is parenthetical makes perfect sense in light of these passages of Scripture.

Robertson knows that Scripture must harmonize with other Scripture, namely, Acts 3:19; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31. Water baptism being for "in order to obtain" the remission of sins is in clear contradiction with these passages of Scripture, so something has to give.

It would take a lot more gymnastics to twist the many many passages of Scripture that make it clear we are saved through belief/faith "apart from additions or modifications" and forcing these passages of Scripture to include water baptism. Multiple Greek scholars say that your interpretation of Acts 2:38 is not the only interpretation of the verse and "repentance unto the remission of sins" and baptism parenthetical is in harmony with Acts 3:19; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31 and that is good enough for me. Bottom line - Scripture MUST harmonize with Scripture. Christ's finished work of redemption is sufficient and complete. No supplements needed. Through faith, I trust exclusively in Jesus Christ as the ALL-sufficient means of my salvation and not in water and works.

Well, let us see how this argument stands the test of the grammar. Most of this work is mine but I have placed an astric by those comments I have borrowed from other sources over the years.

The simple fact of the matter is that “repent and be baptize each one of you” DO agree in both person and in number. From the Byzantine text: 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.
“Peter also said to them (third person plural), repent (second person plural) and be baptized (third person singular) each one of you (second person plural) in the name of Jesus Christ into forgiveness of sins, and you will receive (second person plural) the gift of the Holy Spirit.” ὑμῶν – “each one of you” is second person plural and modifies βαπτισθήτω which is third person plural. ὑμῶν agrees in person and in number with μετανοήσατε – repent. He said the same thing to every one of those present laying down the same command to each one. To whom was he speaking? 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; And these two imperatives are joined together by the conjunction καὶ thus are not grammatically separated. Although the word βαπτισθήτω is third person singular spelling, it is modified by ὑμῶν – “each one of you” which is second person plural. In fact ὑμῶν stands as a modifier for both μετανοήσατε, and βαπτισθήτω.Who would receive the remission of sins? Everyone who obeyed the linked imperatives to repent and be baptized, second person plural. Who would receive the Holy Spirit as a gift? Everyone of them who obeyed the linked imperatives to repent and be baptized, second person plural. The reference point for the two imperatives and the future indicative – “will receive,” produces exactly the same results at the same time for the same responders – “the gift of the Holy Spirit.” *Grammatically, verse 38 shows a narrowing of focus from a general admonition for all to “repent” to a more specific focus on each individual who make up the αὐτούς of the first cluse to the action that is designated to follow. The imperative “be baptized” is reflexive and is modified by “each of you” and directs both imperatives to the entire assembly.

It has also been argued that according to the rule of Greek grammar that verbs within the same clause must agree both in person and number but the fact is that this is not the case. For example, *in 1Cor 1:12 we find the following construction; Λέγω δὲ τοῦτο, ὅτι ἕκαστος ὑμῶν λέγει, Ἐγὼ μέν εἰμι Παύλου, Ἐγὼ δὲ Ἀπολλώ, Ἐγὼ δὲ Κηφᾶ, Ἐγὼ δὲ Χριστοῦ. Here is a perfect example where the subject the same persons is referred to in all three persons. This really does not matter because as I have shown, “repent and be baptize each one of you” DO agree in person and in number and these do not form two separate clauses,

The argument made by my Robertson was that because “be baptized” is third person singular and “repent” is second person plural means Peter had to have given separate instructions to two different groups of people with differing results. Beyond the obvious absurdity of this argument is the simple fact that ἕκαστος ὑμῶν – “each one of you” renders the argument invalid. Robertson and many like him argue that because “be baptized” is third person singular it cannot be linked to the second person plural command to “repent.” What this argument refuses to acknowledge is that “be baptized” is accompanied by a second person plural modifier – ἕκαστος ὑμῶν – “each one of you.” So “be baptized” can only be understood in connection with its second person plural modifier. It is actually just as simple as this, grammatically βαπτισθήτω cannot be separated as a third person singular verb from its modifiers ἕκαστος ὑμῶν which is second person plural. *Therefore, both verbs under discussion are treated as second person imperatives both resulting in the same outcome – forgiveness of sin. There is no disagreement with subject and verb in this verse. "βαπτισθήτω" is 3rd person singular which corrosponds to the nominative singular adjective ἕκαστος", which here acts here as a substantive ("each"). βαπτισθήτω has a different subject than μετανοήσατε ("you" plural expressed in the form of the verb), even though both μετανοήσατε and βαπτισθήτω refer to the same group.

I do not know how much more plainly this could have possibly be written in the Greek. I don't care how many people sign off on it Robertson's treatment of this verse is an embarrasment to his skills as a translater. Wallace certainly did not agree with this grammatical travisty of Robertson's. In fact, he was very much apposed to it. If you like I can post Wallace's critique of this verse and you can compare the opposing fiews of these tow great scholars. The difference between this on their approach to this text is that Robertson's treatment of this verse is by his own admition driven by his soteriological position rather than the force of the grammar of this text. Wallace, on the other hand, who like Robertson also did not believe that baptism was for the rission of sin but he dealt with the text as a grammarian and not as a soteriologist. This is how this is supposed to be done.




.

 

[oldhermit]

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

Galatians 1:7-9 Water baptism is another gospel not the gospel preached to men whereby they might be saved. There is no water baptism in grace. Salvation by grace involves the Holy Spirit, the word of God and the blood of Jesus Christ.

Grace cannot be conditioned upon man. Salvation is conditioned upon Gods grace.

Do you also subscribe to the no Holy Spirit dwelling in those souls who have been saved?

I'm very disappointed in you.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Paul is not even addressing baptism in Gal 17-9. You are still stuck with the fact that apostles both taught and practiced water baptism in during conversion. Why did they do this if it has no place in one's conversion. They not only administered it but commanded those they taught to submit to it. You see this with Peter in the conversion Carnelious in 10:48. Paul also baptized the Philippian Jailer, Lydia, Crispus, and Gaius after preaching the gospel to them. Why?

 

[MarcR]

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

Thank you for answering this question. Now allow me to ask another. If there is indeed only one baptism as Paul declares and if that one baptism is Holy Spirit baptism, then why did the apostles continue to teach and practice water baptism? If the H.S. is the one baptism then they were practicing a baptism that was no longer valid. If there is only one, then why do they practice two?

According to first century rabbinic teaching; Torah observance was viewed as a yoke. In answer to this teaching Jesus responded: Mt 11:28-30

28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.

30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.
KJV


Under first century rabbinic teaching, prostelites were required to undergo a ritual mikvah baptism to signify acceptance of the God of Israel as the one true god and to signify repentance from sin. IMO, this was the baptism of John the baptizer.


The continuation of water baptism was likewise intended to signify acceptance (in this case of Jesus' sacrifice on their behalf) and repentance.

Water baptism, like the rabbinic mikvah baptism, is intended as a symbolic witness to that which has already taken place.

 

[oldhermit]

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

According to first century rabbinic teaching; Torah observance was viewed as a yoke. In answer to this teaching Jesus responded: Mt 11:28-30

28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.

30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.
KJV


Under first century rabbinic teaching, prostelites were required to undergo a ritual mikvah baptism to signify acceptance of the God of Israel as the one true god and to signify repentance from sin. IMO, this was the baptism of John the baptizer.

The continuation of water baptism was likewise intended to signify acceptance (in this case of Jesus' sacrifice on their behalf) and repentance.

Water baptism, like the rabbinic mikvah baptism, is intended as a symbolic witness to that which has already taken place.

I wonder then if you would explain to me why the Jewish translators of this verse render it this way in the Peshitta"Said to them Simon You repent and dip (plunge, bathe, wash) each one of you in name of the Lord Yeshua (Jesus) for the forgiveness of the sin in order that you might receive the gift of the Spirit the Holy"



[TABLE="width: 670"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 666"]

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]