If we're saved by faith

[loveme1]

why does the Bible say we have to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. Acts 2:38

It is part of Faith to Hear, Believe and do....

If the Lord states we are to run to safety...we run.. heard, Believed and did.

Moved by Faith is something to consider.. Believing upon hearing and GOD empowers us to move..

To Repent and Be Baptized is part of Believing.

A change of heart when we accept we are condemned justly and GOD will pardon and save us through Faith in His Perfect Son.

Let us remember the Gospel was being shared and Bibles were not freely available like we are custom to.

GOD is Amazing and Good.. you can see how His Perfect plan comes to pass...

Anyhhew.. Read the Lord’s Testament and as we are Loved and Forgiven we are to Love and forgive.. and that is something that we all must express as Saved children.

No greater measure will you have than the cross.. what then can we not forgive? Though it is not always instant it comes in time.

 

[seed_time_harvest]

You receive the gift of the Holy Spirit when you are baptized. Acts 2:38

Try to keep up.

Just a thought here----
What if a person could not be baptized because of medical reasons?
If baptism is necessary for salvation, that person has no chance for eternal life.
Think about that for a moment.

Think about what Ellsworth said.

 

[OneFaith]

Just a thought here----
What if a person could not be baptized because of medical reasons?
If baptism is necessary for salvation, that person has no chance for eternal life.
Think about that for a moment.

The answer to that is Revelation 2:21 and Colossians 3:25. God gave Jezebel time to repent, and she did not- which means she is going to hell- which means if God does not give time for everyone to respond positively to Him, that would mean that not only is He a liar and does show favoritism, but that He showed favoritism to someone who is not even His child and not going to heaven.

 

[Anothen]

I agree that there is nothing magical about the water. H2O does not wash our sins away. We obey God by being baptized, then during being dunked under water God performs circumcision of the heart by spiritually cutting away sin from our heart with Christ’s blood. (Colossians 2:11,12).

Only Christ’s blood washes away sin- therefore only Christ’s blood saves. But baptism saves by putting us into contact with His blood. And without faith baptism is just getting wet, so there are many things that lead us to Christ’s life-saving blood, but only baptism puts you in contact with it. We all know that only those in Christ will be saved, and the Bible only says one way to get into Christ- we are baptized into Christ. (Romans 6:3). And “If we join Him like this in His death, then we will also join Him in His resurrection.” Romans 6:4

I have to say I have never heard that version of a view. While I completely disagree, it was interesting to read. You will be hard pressed (basically impossible) to Scripturally support the conclusion you reach. The overwhelming evidence on regeneration is at the point of Faith Alone in Christ Alone. The Romans 6:3 passage is not addressing"water baptism". Once you get out of Acts there isn't one passage in all the letters that teaches water baptism as essential to salvation. Even Jesus in the Gospel of John never mentioned repent or water as essential components of salvation. Likewise, Paul in Galatians presents justification in a masterful doctrinal presentation where no one should be in opposition to its conclusion. I must side on the overwhelming evidence of passages that clearly teach that regeneration is by Faith Alone in Christ Alone ONLY. Again, I enjoyed reading your view. God's Richest Blessings

 

[Anothen]

It has been a while since I made acomparative study in Acts on the patters of things surrounding"Salvation" The safest thing all believers should understand is that Acts is a transitional record of the first believers to make up the Body of Christ. Taking John's Gospel, pre-Acts, and Paul's very clear writing Post-Acts on salvation one must conclude that God the Holy Spirit inters the believer at the point of Faith, not speaking in tongues, water baptism, or any other way. If you draw your New Testament doctrine from Acts it will be impossible and in opposition to the clear teaching of John's Gospel and Paul's Writings where he is the primary educator of what Salvation in the letters to the church and how to understand it. When we look at all of the Scripture teaches on regeneration / becoming born from above it is by God's Grace Alone Through Faith Alone to the Glory of God Alone. There just isn't any way around the overwhelming body of evidence that speaks to the saving of man's soul.

Paul used Abraham as a point of reference as to when he wassaved and the conclusion is when he believed.

 

[FlyingDove]

All scripture is written for us

All scripture isn't written to us

Acts 2 is not written to NT Body of Christ/Church believers

2 Programs

1) Pre death, all Jewish (NO GENTILES) under Mosaic law

Pre death: Anyone could become Jewish/Israelite: They had to get circumcised, under go a full Mikva, bring a sin sacrifice to the Temple and live via Mosaic law.

2) Post death & resurrection: By Grace thru Faith

Post death open to ALL, Jew 1st and then to the gentile. Rom 1:16 & Rom 2:9

Testament = Covenant

The 4 gospels (until Christs death) are an extention of the Old Testament/Covenant.

The old testament (like a will) stays in place until there is a death

Heb 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
(NOTE: Christ, thru his death, redeems transgressions/sinners from the old covenant/testament)

HERE PROGRAM 1 Peter is speaking to Jews

Acts 10:28 Peter said unto them, Ye know how that it is an """unlawful""" thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean
(NOTE: Peter tells Cornelius a gentile. """IT'S UNLAWFUL""" for a Jew to keep company with a gentile)

Jews often referred to Gentiles as "dogs". (See Matt 7:6; Lk 16:21)

John 18:28 Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the Passover.
(NOTE: The judgment hall is Roman/gentile. Gentiles were considered so ungodly, being in their presence could make a Jew ceremonially unclean)

Acts 2:1 Pentecost a mandatory Jewish pilgrimage Feast (Deut 16:16). Every male Jew, of age, had to travel to the Temple yearly. The Temple Mt is crowded, Peter is addressing this great crowd of Jews on Covenant ground.

Acts 2:14 Peter say's, Ye men of Judaea (who is from Judaea = JEWS)

Acts 2:22 Peter say's,Ye men of Israel

Acts 2:36 Peter say's house of Israel.

You can't force gentiles into what's happening here. At this point in time, the entire program is JEWISH

PROGRAM 2

Jesus wasn't Baptised for sin removal, HE WAS SINLESS: 2 Cor 5:21, Heb 4:15, 1 Jn 3:5 1 Pet 1:19, 1 Pet 2:22

New Covenant is cut in the blood of Christ. New testament believers sins are forgiven/cleansed/washed away thur faith in Christs, redemptive, sin atoning BLOOD sacrifice, Not thru water baptism!

 

[Anothen]

A simple answer: What is faith, it is confidence in, trust in, belief in an OBJECT. The object may be person, place or thing. When we speak of faith related to salvation we identify the object of faith and that object is Christ, so the object is a person and further it is the message of that person the gospel of which it cannot be separated from the narrative. The object is a person with a mission and the story of that mission is the Gospel "good news" of what God did to offer salvation to all of mankind. This is the object of salvation. Prior to anyone's faith in Christ they trust in many other things in life, but not in Christ. When one is saved they transfer their trust in whatever it is to Christ. Note that believe identifies with "Repent" in its basic meaning which means a change of mind, yet "repent" is rarely used as a synonymy for faith in the NT unto salvation. Repent is also a word that is used for the believer to correct ones return to fellowship due to not walking in the Spirit. The bottom line of salvation is that the lost cannot be save by works, it must be by trust, confidence in, believe in, faith in Christ. We are unacceptable to God as we are in the Flesh, so we have nothing to offer Him for our salvation, that is why He died for us, even our good works is unacceptable prior to salvation and our good works is still unacceptable in Christ if they are not motivated by our love for Him. Good works by a Christian is the goal, but not all Christians who work doing good things will be accepted by God at the BEMA seat judgment for Believers only, because motive off not done for Christ but to point to self, we still as saved humans fight the old nature, the flesh.

The lost must trust in His work, God's work in sending his Son to solve the sin issue, our nature which if not solved results in the lost going to hell. Salvation is Only by God's Grace Alone Through Only Faith Alone, To the Glory of God Alone.

 

[MarcR]

why does the Bible say we have to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. Acts 2:38

The answer to your question hinges on a controversy among Greek grammarians and lexicographers.

Thayer, in his Greek/English lexicon does not accept the causal use of 'eis'; but, Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich do in theirs.

A.T. Robertson, among others concurs in accepting the causal use of 'eis'.

If we translate Acts 2:38

Believe, and be baptized because your sins are forgiven; the question disappears.

I believe that this is the correct translation.

 

[DJ2]

Nope. We recieved the gift when we repented, I was baptised BECAUSE I recieved the gift.

Nope. We receive the gift when we are baptized, we are baptized SO THAT we will get the gift. The word "BECAUSE" is not even in the verse.

Acts 2:38 J.B. Phillips New Testament (PHILLIPS)

Peter told them, “You must repent and every one of you must be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ, so that you may have your sins forgiven and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Acts 2:38 GOD’S WORD Translation (GW)

Peter answered them, “All of you must turn to God and change the way you think and act, and each of you must be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins will be forgiven. Then you will receive the Holy Spirit as a gift

Take off your faith only blinders and just read what the scriptures say.

 

[DJ2]

The answer to your question hinges on a controversy among Greek grammarians and lexicographers.

Thayer, in his Greek/English lexicon does not accept the causal use of 'eis'; but, Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich do in theirs.

A.T. Robertson, among others concurs in accepting the causal use of 'eis'.

If we translate Acts 2:38

Believe, and be baptized because your sins are forgiven; the question disappears.

I believe that this is the correct translation.

So to be properly translated it should read "because"?

And how many of the thousands of translations got it right?

 

[Magenta]

IF (big if) someone truly cannot be baptized, for whatever health reason you can come up with in a hypothetical situation, I imagine that God knows what's in their heart, and will be just to them.

Willingly refusing baptism is actually a refusal to follow Jesus' command.... I would not think that a person who is "saved" would willingly tell Jesus "I don't see it as necessary, so I'm not going to do it"....

That is the point of contention, though, whether it is water baptism that saves, or it is saved people who get water baptized, following the baptism of the Holy Spirit of God

 

[MarcR]

So to be properly translated it should read "because"?

And how many of the thousands of translations got it right?

English uses for in the sense of because of but most people elect not to understand it in that sense.

 

[Ellsworth1943]

Just a thought here-----
Does a person's circumstance bear any weight to the Word of God? If God is not a respecter of person, is He a respecter of situation? Does our peculiar situation change what is required by God?
Think about that for a moment.

God never requires of us what we cannot do. Regardless if it is physical or mental.

 

[DJ2]

English uses for in the sense of because of but most people elect not to understand it in that sense.

The question is not how the English "for" can be used but the Greek "eis" can be used.

Regardless of how many different ways "for" can be used in English, the real question is can "eis" be used for "because"?

I think you know this but are willing to grasp at any straw that might give some validity to faith alone theology.

Now back to the question you ignored. How many of the thousand of bible translations use "because".

To make it easier to find one, try other languages than English. Maybe a German, Spanish, French or Hebrew translation may use "because". Here's an idea, try a Greek translation. Surely at least one got it right.

[h=1]Acts 2:38GOD’S WORD Translation (GW)[/h][FONT=&quot]38 Peter answered them, “All of you must turn to God and change the way you think and act, and each of you must be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins will be forgiven. Then you will receive the Holy Spirit as a gift

Boy, did these guys get it wrong![/FONT]

 

[DJ2]

God never requires of us what we cannot do. Regardless if it is physical or mental.

Agreed. But what of the things that we can do. Is this than required.

 

[Ellsworth1943]

Agreed. But what of the things that we can do. Is this than required.

There is only one door to eternal life, not two, three, or many.
It has always been one way. God will never require baptism for salvation because it is not always possible.
The thief on the cross was not baptized but is with Jesus today.

 

[Magenta]

The question is not how the English "for" can be used but the Greek "eis" can be used.

Regardless of how many different ways "for" can be used in English, the real question is can "eis" be used for "because"?

I think you know this but are willing to grasp at any straw that might give some validity to faith alone theology.

Now back to the question you ignored. How many of the thousand of bible translations use "because".

To make it easier to find one, try other languages than English. Maybe a German, Spanish, French or Hebrew translation may use "because". Here's an idea, try a Greek translation. Surely at least one got it right.

Acts 2:38GOD’S WORD Translation (GW)

38 Peter answered them, “All of you must turn to God and change the way you think and act, and each of you must be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins will be forgiven. Then you will receive the Holy Spirit as a gift

Boy, did these guys get it wrong!

"Does Acts 2:38 teach that baptism is necessary for salvation?"

Acts 2:38, “And Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’” As with any single verse or passage, we discern what it teaches by first filtering it through what we know the Bible teaches on the subject at hand. In the case of baptism and salvation, the Bible is clear that salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, not by works of any kind, including baptism (Ephesians 2:8-9). So, any interpretation which comes to the conclusion that baptism, or any other act, is necessary for salvation, is a faulty interpretation.

Why, then, do some come to the conclusion that we must be baptized in order to be saved? Often, the discussion of whether or not this passage teaches baptism is required for salvation centers around the Greek word eis that is translated “for” in this passage. Those who hold to the belief that baptism is required for salvation are quick to point to this verse and the fact that it says “be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins,” assuming that the word translated “for” in this verse means “in order to get.” However, in both Greek and English, there are many possible usages of the word “for.”

As an example, when one says “Take two aspirin for your headache,” it is obvious to everybody that it does not mean “take two aspirin in order to get your headache,” but instead to “take two aspirin because you already have a headache.” There are three possible meanings of the word “for” that might fit the context of Acts 2:38: 1--“in order to be, become, get, have, keep, etc.,” 2—“because of, as the result of,” or 3—“with regard to.” Since any one of the three meanings could fit the context of this passage, additional study is required in order to determine which one is correct.

We need to start by looking back to the original language and the meaning of the Greek word eis. This is a common Greek word (it is used 1774 times in the New Testament) that is translated many different ways. Like the English word “for” it can have several different meanings. So, again, we see at least two or three possible meanings of the passage, one that would seem to support that baptism is required for salvation and others that would not. While both the meanings of the Greek word eis are seen in different passages of Scripture, such noted Greek scholars as A.T. Robertson and J.R. Mantey have maintained that the Greek preposition eis in Acts 2:38 should be translated “because of” or “in view of,” and not “in order to,” or “for the purpose of.”​

One example of how this preposition is used in other Scriptures is seen in Matthew 12:41 where the word eis communicates the “result” of an action. In this case it is said that the people of Nineveh “repented at the preaching of Jonah” (the word translated “at” is the same Greek word eis). Clearly, the meaning of this passage is that they repented “because of’” or “as the result of” Jonah’s preaching.

In the same way, it would be possible that Acts 2:38 is indeed communicating the fact that they were to be baptized “as the result of” or “because” they already had believed and in doing so had already received forgiveness of their sins (John 1:12; John 3:14-18; John 5:24; John 11:25-26; Acts 10:43; Acts 13:39; Acts 16:31; Acts 26:18; Romans 10:9; Ephesians 1:12-14). This interpretation of the passage is also consistent with the message recorded in Peter’s next two sermons to unbelievers where he associates the forgiveness of sins with the act of repentance and faith in Christ without even mentioning baptism (Acts 3:17-26; Acts 4:8-12).

In addition to Acts 2:38, there are three other verses where the Greek word eis is used in conjunction with the word “baptize” or “baptism.” The first of these is Matthew 3:11, “baptize you with water for repentance.” Clearly the Greek word eis cannot mean “in order to get” in this passage. They were not baptized “in order to get repentance,” but were “baptized because they had repented.” The second passage is Romans 6:3 where we have the phrase “baptized into (eis) His death.” This again fits with the meaning “because of” or in "regard to."

The third and final passage is 1 Corinthians 10:2 and the phrase “baptized into (eis) Moses in the cloud and in the sea.” Again, eis cannot mean “in order to get” in this passage because the Israelites were not baptized in order to get Moses to be their leader, but because he was their leader and had led them out of Egypt. If one is consistent with the way the preposition eis is used in conjunction with baptism, we must conclude that Acts 2:38 is indeed referring to their being baptized “because” they had received forgiveness of their sins. Some other verses where the Greek preposition eis does not mean “in order to obtain” are Matthew 28:19; 1 Peter 3:21; Acts 19:3; 1 Corinthians 1:15; and 12:13.

The grammatical evidence surrounding this verse and the preposition eis are clear that while both views on this verse are well within the context and the range of possible meanings of the passage, the majority of the evidence is in favor that the best possible definition of the word “for” in this context is either “because of” or “in regard to” and not “in order to get.” Therefore, Acts 2:38, when interpreted correctly, does not teach that baptism is required for salvation.

Besides the precise meaning of the preposition translated “for” in this passage, there is another grammatical aspect of this verse to carefully consider—the change between the second person and third person between the verbs and pronouns in the passage. For example, in Peter’s commands to repent and be baptized the Greek verb translated “repent” is in the second person plural while the verb “be baptized,” is in the third person singular. When we couple this with the fact that the pronoun “your” in the phrase “forgiveness of your sins” is also second person plural, we see an important distinction being made that helps us understand this passage.

The result of this change from second person plural to third person singular and back would seem to connect the phrase “forgiveness of your sins” directly with the command to “repent.” Therefore, when you take into account the change in person and plurality, essentially what you have is “You (plural) repent for the forgiveness of your (plural) sins, and let each one (singular) of you be baptized (singular).” Or, to put it in a more distinct way: “You all repent for the forgiveness of all of your sins, and let each one of you be baptized.”​

Another error that is made by those who believe Acts 2:38 teaches baptism is required for salvation is what is sometimes called the Negative Inference Fallacy. Simply put, this is the idea that just because a statement is true, we cannot assume all negations (or opposites) of that statement are true. In other words, just because Acts 2:38 says “repent and be baptized….for the forgiveness of sins…and the gift of the Holy Spirit,” it does not mean that if one repents and is not baptized, he will not receive forgiveness of sins or the gift of the Holy Spirit.

There is an important difference between a condition of salvation and a requirement for salvation. The Bible is clear that belief is both a condition and a requirement, but the same cannot be said for baptism. The Bible does not say that if a man is not baptized then he will not be saved. One can add any number of conditions to faith (which is required for salvation), and the person can still be saved. For example if a person believes, is baptized, goes to church, and gives to the poor he will be saved. Where the error in thinking occurs is if one assumes all these other conditions, “baptism, going to church, giving to the poor,” are required for one to be saved. While they might be the evidence of salvation, they are not a requirement for salvation.

The fact that baptism is not required to receive forgiveness and the gift of the Holy Spirit should also be evident by simply reading a little farther in the book of Acts. In Acts 10:43, Peter tells Cornelius that “through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins” (please note that nothing at this point has been mentioned about being baptized, yet Peter connects believing in Christ with the act of receiving forgiveness for sins). The next thing that happens is, having believed Peter’s message about Christ, the “Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message” (Acts 10:44).

It is only after they had believed, and therefore received forgiveness of their sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit, that Cornelius and his household were baptized (Acts 10:47-48). The context and the passage are very clear; Cornelius and his household received both forgiveness of sins and the Holy Spirit before they were ever baptized. In fact, the reason Peter allowed them to be baptized was that they showed evidence of receiving the Holy Spirit “just as Peter and the Jewish believers” had.

In conclusion, Acts 2:38 does not teach that baptism is required for salvation. While baptism is important as the sign that one has been justified by faith and as the public declaration of one’s faith in Christ and membership in a local body of believers, it is not the means of remission or forgiveness of sins. The Bible is very clear that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone (John 1:12; John 3:16; Acts 16:31; Romans 3:21-30; Romans 4:5; Romans 10:9-10; Ephesians 2:8-10; Philippians 3:9; Galatians 2:16).
https://www.gotquestions.org/baptism-Acts-2-38.html

 

[DJ2]

There is only one door to eternal life, not two, three, or many.
It has always been one way. God will never require baptism for salvation because it is not always possible.
The thief on the cross was not baptized but is with Jesus today.

I am not aware of if the thief on the cross was or was not baptized. How do you know for sure that he was not. As far as I can read the bible does not give an answer either way.

 

[MarcR]

The question is not how the English "for" can be used but the Greek "eis" can be used.

Regardless of how many different ways "for" can be used in English, the real question is can "eis" be used for "because"?

I think you know this but are willing to grasp at any straw that might give some validity to faith alone theology.

Now back to the question you ignored. How many of the thousand of bible translations use "because".

To make it easier to find one, try other languages than English. Maybe a German, Spanish, French or Hebrew translation may use "because". Here's an idea, try a Greek translation. Surely at least one got it right.

Acts 2:38GOD’S WORD Translation (GW)

38 Peter answered them, “All of you must turn to God and change the way you think and act, and each of you must be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins will be forgiven. Then you will receive the Holy Spirit as a gift

Boy, did these guys get it wrong!

I started out acknowledging that the causal use of eis was controversial.

I explained both sides of the issue fairly, and then took a position.

With A. T. Robertson; and Bauer Arndt and Gingrich in agreement with me, I am in very good company.

Please explain what you think is wrong with my post, apart from the fact that you disagree with my conclusion.

 

[DJ2]

I started out acknowledging that the causal use of eis was controversial.

I explained both sides of the issue fairly, and then took a position.

With A. T. Robertson; and Bauer Arndt and Gingrich in agreement with me, I am in very good company.

Please explain what you think is wrong with my post, apart from the fact that you disagree with my conclusion.

I started out acknowledging that the causal use of eis was controversial.

The causal use of eis is not controversial, it is bogus. Labeling the causal use of eis as just controversial is like labeling the Book of Mormon as holy scripture as just controversial.

I explained both sides of the issue fairly, and then took a position.

You did no such thing. You presented a flimsy notion as if it was a valid argument.

With A. T. Robertson; and Bauer Arndt and Gingrich in agreement with me, I am in very good company.

You are at best in company with agenda driven individuals pushing a modern day theory on the weakest of evidence.

Please explain what you think is wrong with my post, apart from the fact that you disagree with my conclusion.

I grow tried of addressing your points, now please stop ignoring my question. How many of the thousands of translations of the Bible translate "eis" as you suggest in your position?