Acts 2:38...baptism for salvation?

[doogieduff]

Acts 2:38
38 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

This verse seems to show baptism for salvation. I don't know greek, but I've been taught that "every" is a partitive genitive which distributes the singular among the plural, meaning, literally, each and every one of you be baptized for the remission of sins. The word "for" in this verse I believe is "eis" (ace) which, by one source is found 1,773 times in the NT. One person told me it should be translated "because of" yet never in the 1,773 times in the NT, is it ever translated "because of." Any thoughts?

[Jaltus]

Prepositions are tricky little words. You are better off looking up the string "for the remission of sins"). You will find it occurs 5 times in the NT total, 3 dealing with baptism, 2 not dealing with it.

The references are Matthew 26:28, Mark 1:4 = Luke 3:3, and Luke 24:47 (we already know Acts 2:38).

Jesus' blood is for the forgiveness of sins, as is repentance. The question becomes, is baptism equal to these or is it a symbol of these? According to Paul, baptism is the symbol of these things.

Remember that there are a lot of verses which talk about repenting which do not mention baptism. If baptism was a requirement, one would expect it to be listed every time. However, Paul states that confession of Christ as Lord and belief in the resurrection alone are enough for salvation (Rom 10:9).

Thus, this verse may lend itself toward baptism as salvific, but grammatically it is not necessary nor does it fit canonically.

[doogieduff]

Today @ 11:08 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=92162#post92162)
Jaltus:

Prepositions are tricky little words. You are better off looking up the string "for the remission of sins"). You will find it occurs 5 times in the NT total, 3 dealing with baptism, 2 not dealing with it.

The references are Matthew 26:28, Mark 1:4 = Luke 3:3, and Luke 24:47 (we already know Acts 2:38).

I'd rather stick with "every" and "of." I think that shows baptism for "the remission of sins."


Jesus' blood is for the forgiveness of sins, as is repentance. The question becomes, is baptism equal to these or is it a symbol of these? According to Paul, baptism is the symbol of these things.

Remember that there are a lot of verses which talk about repenting which do not mention baptism. If baptism was a requirement, one would expect it to be listed every time. However, Paul states that confession of Christ as Lord and belief in the resurrection alone are enough for salvation (Rom 10:9).

Thus, this verse may lend itself toward baptism as salvific, but grammatically it is not necessary nor does it fit canonically.


I love how you skirt the issue jaltus. You want to leave the verse itself and argue from the lack of other verses. Well, let's stick with my verse. Peter spoke baptism for salvation. No questions asked. I even argued grammatically from the greek, what more do you want?! And lucky for you, your knowledge of greek tells you I'm correct in this occasion. You see, I fully agree that Paul taught belief and belief alone for the remission of sins. This is besides the point. (A understanding of dispensationalism makes both Peter's verses and Paul's verses proof texts!) Why do you think Paul spoke his gospel in private? (Galations 2:1-2) It was different from Peter's. Paul didn't start recieving his gospel, (which was "from Jesus Christ" Gal. 1:11-12 and "hidden from the ages" Eph. 3:5) until after Acts 9. So our Acts 2 verse was still in effect and very correct. Baptism for the remission of sins!

[InquisitorKind]

Today @ 03:00 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=92251#post92251)
doogieduff:

Peter spoke baptism for salvation. No questions asked. I even argued grammatically from the greek, what more do you want?! And lucky for you, your knowledge of greek tells you I'm correct in this occasion.
I don't mean to barge in, but when Jaltus says this:


grammatically it is not necessary
You take that as Jaltus' admission that you are correct and that Acts 2:38 really does teach baptismal regeneration?

I don't think using other verses to prove a principle as true or false is unacceptable, even though you have deemed this to be the case, at least concerning Acts 2:38. One simple example of using other texts to clairfy or explain a specific text is that of the Trinity. (It would seem that God is one, not three, but it happens that other verses can explain this, etc.)

~Matt

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

:btc:

The following comes from http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/salvatio/baptsave.htm


When it comes to having sins forgiven, what must a person do? The Bible teaches that it is faith and repentance that brings about forgiveness. Repentance and faith are two sides of the same coin. You can’t have true repentance without having true faith. You can’t have true faith without having true repentance. They go together. The Bible sometimes mentions repentance as the only condition of salvation. One example of this would be Luke 13:3, “I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.” See also Luke 15:7,10 and Acts 17:30. A few times both repentance and faith are mentioned in the same verse (Mark 1:15; Acts 20:21). There are many, many verses which mention only faith as the condition of salvation (John 1:12; 3:16; 5:24; Acts 16:31; etc.). When only repentance is mentioned, faith is implied or assumed. When only faith is mentioned, repentance is implied or assumed. Where you have one you must have the other.



What is repentance? The word means “a change of mind.” It means to change your mind about sin, self and the Saviour. It especially has to do with one’s recognition of his true condition before God. One Biblical definition of repentance is found in Job 42:4. Job said, “Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.” According to this verse, to repent is to abhor oneself, to discover how vile we are (see Job 40:4), to discover our utter wretchedness and sinfulness. No one can be saved unless he changes his mind about sin and self and recognizes how sinful he really is in God’s sight.



Harry Ironside explained repentance as follows: ““Repentance is just the sick man’s acknowledgment of his illness. It is simply the sinner recognizing his guilt and confessing his need of deliverance....(repentance) is judging oneself in the presence of God; turning right about-face, turning to God with a sincere, earnest desire to be completely delivered from sin. And when a man takes that attitude toward God and puts his faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, he finds salvation” (Luke, pp. 253-254).



In another place Ironside said, “Literally [repentance] means ‘a change of mind.’ It actually implies a complete reversal of one’s inward attitude. To repent is to change one’s attitude toward self, toward sin, toward God, toward Christ....So to face these tremendous facts is to change one’s mind completely, so that the pleasure lover sees and confesses the folly of his empty life; the self-indulgent learns to hate the passions that express the corruption of his nature; the self-righteous sees himself a condemned sinner in the eyes of a holy God; the man who has been hiding from God seeks to find a hiding place in Him; the Christ-rejector realizes and owns his need of a Redeemer, and so believes unto life and salvation” (Except Ye Repent, pages 15-16).

True faith requires repentance because to be saved a person must recognize his lost estate and see himself as lost and helpless and vile and wicked and utterly sinful. True repentance requires faith because the man who repents believes what God has said about his true condition (Romans 3:10-23) and he also believes that God has provided a perfect solution in the person of His Son, God’s only Saviour


Now let us return to our discussion of Acts 2:38. We have already seen that faith (which would include repentance), not baptism, is essential for the forgiveness of sins. This is clearly seen in Peter’s very next sermon, found in Acts 3:19—“Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out.” Notice that in this verse Peter says nothing about water baptism. If water baptism is essential for the forgiveness of sins, why did Peter say nothing of this in Acts 3:19? If water baptism is essential for forgiveness of sins, why did Peter say nothing of this in Acts 10:43 (“To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission (forgiveness) of sins”). If water baptism is an essential part of the preaching of salvation, then why does Luke 24:46-47 mention repentance and the remission (forgiveness) of sins but say nothing about water baptism?

In reference to the verse directly, it is possible, that the phrase is actually part of a chiasmus (inverted parallelism) and should be connected not with the command "Be baptized" but with the command "Repent." The verse contains two commands and two prepositional phrases which can be represented by the following chiasmus:



A Repent


B Be Baptized


B In the Name of Jesus Christ


A For the remission of sins




In English we would best represent this structure by using a parenthesis: "Repent (and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ) for the remission of sins." This is exactly what Acts 3:19 teaches (only Peter there omits the parenthesis). In Acts 3:19 Peter could have said, "Repent (and be baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ) so that your sins may be blotted out!"

and for a last point on the grammar:


Stanley D. Toussaint (The Book of Acts in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, p. 359) gives several reasons why the parenthetical view is the correct view:



Several factors support this interpretation: (a) The verb makes a distinction between singular and plural verbs and nouns. The verb "repent" is plural ["repent ye"] and so is the pronoun "your" in the clause, "so that your sins may be forgiven" (lit., "unto the remission of your sins," (eis aphesin ton hamartion humon). Therefore the verb "repent" must go with the purpose of forgiveness of sins. On the other hand the imperative "be baptized" is singular, setting it off from the rest of the sentence. (b) This concept fits with Peter's proclamation in Acts 10:43 in which the same expression "sins may be forgiven" (aphesis harmartion) occurs. There it is granted on the basis of faith alone. (c) In Luke 24:47 and Acts 5:31 the same writer, Luke, indicates that repentance results in remission of sins.

:btc:

[Jaltus]

I think you misread my post, doogie.

I said it is not a grammatical necessity, just a possibility. You could be right, but this verse does not prove it for you. A single verse taken from scripture proves NOTHING. Scripture interprets scripture.

That said, there are numerous problems with your understanding of the verse, and many ways it could be taken. The post above outlines a few of them.

[doogieduff]

Today @ 01:31 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=92266#post92266)
InquisitorKind:


I don't mean to barge in, but when Jaltus says this:


You take that as Jaltus' admission that you are correct and that Acts 2:38 really does teach baptismal regeneration?

I don't think using other verses to prove a principle as true or false is unacceptable, even though you have deemed this to be the case, at least concerning Acts 2:38. One simple example of using other texts to clairfy or explain a specific text is that of the Trinity. (It would seem that God is one, not three, but it happens that other verses can explain this, etc.)

~Matt

My point was not by what he said, but rather what I know he knows.

[SlaveofChrist]

The key to this passage is the word eis. Romans 10:10 also has the word eis which is used in the "because of" manner. "For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." The unto is what was translated from eis. It may not be used many times in that manner, but it is in this situation. Another example is a verse in Matthew, specifically chapter 12 verse 41 "for they repented at the preaching of Jonah" At in the situation is the eis. It would make a great deal more sense to translate it as repenting "because of" the preaching of Jonah, although at can generally convey the same meaning.
In Greek it is not uncommon at all to translate eis as "because of".
There it is, problem solved.

[doogieduff]

Today @ 01:40 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=92277#post92277)
Bill the Cat:

:btc:

The following comes from http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/salvatio/baptsave.htm


When it comes to having sins forgiven, what must a person do? The Bible teaches that it is faith and repentance that brings about forgiveness. Repentance and faith are two sides of the same coin. You can’t have true repentance without having true faith. You can’t have true faith without having true repentance. They go together. The Bible sometimes mentions repentance as the only condition of salvation. One example of this would be Luke 13:3, “I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.” See also Luke 15:7,10 and Acts 17:30. A few times both repentance and faith are mentioned in the same verse (Mark 1:15; Acts 20:21). There are many, many verses which mention only faith as the condition of salvation (John 1:12; 3:16; 5:24; Acts 16:31; etc.). When only repentance is mentioned, faith is implied or assumed. When only faith is mentioned, repentance is implied or assumed. Where you have one you must have the other.



What is repentance? The word means “a change of mind.” It means to change your mind about sin, self and the Saviour. It especially has to do with one’s recognition of his true condition before God. One Biblical definition of repentance is found in Job 42:4. Job said, “Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.” According to this verse, to repent is to abhor oneself, to discover how vile we are (see Job 40:4), to discover our utter wretchedness and sinfulness. No one can be saved unless he changes his mind about sin and self and recognizes how sinful he really is in God’s sight.



Harry Ironside explained repentance as follows: ““Repentance is just the sick man’s acknowledgment of his illness. It is simply the sinner recognizing his guilt and confessing his need of deliverance....(repentance) is judging oneself in the presence of God; turning right about-face, turning to God with a sincere, earnest desire to be completely delivered from sin. And when a man takes that attitude toward God and puts his faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, he finds salvation” (Luke, pp. 253-254).



In another place Ironside said, “Literally [repentance] means ‘a change of mind.’ It actually implies a complete reversal of one’s inward attitude. To repent is to change one’s attitude toward self, toward sin, toward God, toward Christ....So to face these tremendous facts is to change one’s mind completely, so that the pleasure lover sees and confesses the folly of his empty life; the self-indulgent learns to hate the passions that express the corruption of his nature; the self-righteous sees himself a condemned sinner in the eyes of a holy God; the man who has been hiding from God seeks to find a hiding place in Him; the Christ-rejector realizes and owns his need of a Redeemer, and so believes unto life and salvation” (Except Ye Repent, pages 15-16).

True faith requires repentance because to be saved a person must recognize his lost estate and see himself as lost and helpless and vile and wicked and utterly sinful. True repentance requires faith because the man who repents believes what God has said about his true condition (Romans 3:10-23) and he also believes that God has provided a perfect solution in the person of His Son, God’s only Saviour

This is all irrelevent, but thanks though. I AGREE that faith was always a part of salvation, and I BELIEVE that only faith is needed today for salvation. You guys need to understand that I'm talking about Acts 2:38 here. I'm not saying that Acts 2:38 shows baptism for salvation forever, because it doesn't. But it DOES show it there, and that's what 's important.


Now let us return to our discussion of Acts 2:38. We have already seen that faith (which would include repentance), not baptism, is essential for the forgiveness of sins. This is clearly seen in Peter’s very next sermon, found in Acts 3:19—“Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out.” Notice that in this verse Peter says nothing about water baptism. If water baptism is essential for the forgiveness of sins, why did Peter say nothing of this in Acts 3:19?

Peter doesn't have to preach it everytime, especially if it was the culture norm then. Here's a good example with Paul.

Acts 16:31
31 So they said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household."

When Paul saved the Phillipian jailer, he told them to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved, yet Paul's message which he preached for salvation was Jesus death, burial, and resurrection, seen here:

I Corinthians 15:1-4
1 Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand,
2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you--unless you believed in vain.
3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures,

and...

Romans 10:9-10
9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.
10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

I could use your weak argument, and say that Paul didn't preach Jesus DBR for salvation because of Acts 16:31. But that would be stupid. BTW, Acts 3:19 is the only time Peter is written as not talking about baptism. So you have no leg to stand on.


If water baptism is essential for forgiveness of sins, why did Peter say nothing of this in Acts 10:43 (“To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission (forgiveness) of sins”).

Ah, but you have failed to read the context. Peter does preach baptism for salvation here. If you read the story as a whole, you will notice that Peter was interrupted by the Holy Spirit.

Acts 10:46-48
46 For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then Peter answered,
47 "Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?"
48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days.

You see? He did preach it every single time except Acts 3:19. I have shown with Paul why this arguement is very very foolish.


Stanley D. Toussaint (The Book of Acts in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, p. 359) gives several reasons why the parenthetical view is the correct view:



Several factors support this interpretation: (a) The verb makes a distinction between singular and plural verbs and nouns. The verb "repent" is plural ["repent ye"] and so is the pronoun "your" in the clause, "so that your sins may be forgiven" (lit., "unto the remission of your sins," (eis aphesin ton hamartion humon). Therefore the verb "repent" must go with the purpose of forgiveness of sins. On the other hand the imperative "be baptized" is singular, setting it off from the rest of the sentence. (b) This concept fits with Peter's proclamation in Acts 10:43 in which the same expression "sins may be forgiven" (aphesis harmartion) occurs. There it is granted on the basis of faith alone. (c) In Luke 24:47 and Acts 5:31 the same writer, Luke, indicates that repentance results in remission of sins.

:btc:

There is no parenthetical here, and BTW, no greek scholar teaches this. You need to key in on the "every" (ekastos) which is a partitive genitive. A partitive genitive distributes the singular among the plural. Yes, "repent" is plural and "your" is also plural, but "every" is also as it distributes the singular among the plural.

[doogieduff]

Today @ 02:38 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=92332#post92332)
SlaveofChrist:

The key to this passage is the word eis. Romans 10:10 also has the word eis which is used in the "because of" manner. "For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." The unto is what was translated from eis. It may not be used many times in that manner, but it is in this situation. Another example is a verse in Matthew, specifically chapter 12 verse 41 "for they repented at the preaching of Jonah" At in the situation is the eis. It would make a great deal more sense to translate it as repenting "because of" the preaching of Jonah, although at can generally convey the same meaning.
In Greek it is not uncommon at all to translate eis as "because of".
There it is, problem solved.

Sorry, you haven't solved it. JB Smith has shown that in all 1,773 times "eis" is used, it always shows "aim" or "purpose." Your Romans verse, with "unto" for "eis" still shows aim or purpose. Put "because of" in Romans 10:10 and you will see it can't go there. I will admit, that Matthew 12:41 could be translated "because of." It's not though, and you have absolutely no leg to stand on because you have shown one example out of 1,773 times in the NT where it "might" or "could be" translated "because of." That's not strong at all.

[SlaveofChrist]

Alright Doogie, I'm definitely going to disagree. "Confession is made because of salvation" There is nothing wrong with that. Furthermore, Every Biblical Greek scholar would agree with me. It makes perfect sense according to the rules of Greek. Just because it is against the majority doesn't make it completely illogical?
Are you a Greek scholar of some sort?

[doogieduff]

Today @ 03:56 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=92396#post92396)
SlaveofChrist:

Alright Doogie, I'm definitely going to disagree. "Confession is made because of salvation" There is nothing wrong with that.

It's backwards. Salvation comes from repentance. Let me ask you this. What about the people who died before Christ died? Christ's blood was not applied to them UNTIL Christ died. So in this instance, how can salvation come before repentance?


Furthermore, Every Biblical Greek scholar would agree with me. It makes perfect sense according to the rules of Greek. Just because it is against the majority doesn't make it completely illogical?

Show me one.


Are you a Greek scholar of some sort?

I wish! I'm about as far from it as you can get!

[SlaveofChrist]

Renowned Greek scholar A. T. Robertson states that not only does eis signify "aim or purpose" (in order to) as in 1 Corinthians 2:7, it can just as well mean "on the basis or ground of (with reference to), Matthew 10:41; 12:41.

He states that, "the illustrations of both usages are numerous in the New Testament and the Koine (New Testament Greek) generally.

"One will decide the use here (Acts 2:38) 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..." (Word Pictures of the New Testament, pp. 35-36).

Why do the overwhelming percentage of Greek scholars agree with Robertson? Because the rest of Scripture refutes baptismal regeneration. All one has to do is read Acts 10, concerning the account of Peter taking the gospel (which saves, Romans 1:16), to Cornelius and the Gentiles. As Peter proceeds through the gospel message (vs. 34-43), the Scriptures relate that the gift of the Holy Spirit was received upon believing by these Gentiles before they were baptized in water (10:44-48; 11:17-18). Additionally, the Scripture teaches that this is the same way all are saved (Acts 11:15-18, 15:7-11).

This was taken from http://www.watchman.org/reltop/baptism.htm

So there is your one, A.T. Robertson, and according to the article, there are MANY others.

It's backwards. Salvation comes from repentance. Let me ask you this. What about the people who died before Christ died? Christ's blood was not applied to them UNTIL Christ died. So in this instance, how can salvation come before repentance?

The verse never said anything about repentance, it clearly says confession with the mouth. Confession with the mouth does not imply repentance. It can be a product, but if it comes before salvation then that would be defined as works righteousness and be completely contrary to many Biblical passages leaving every Christian on the earth in error.

[doogieduff]

Today @ 04:31 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=92412#post92412)
SlaveofChrist:

Renowned Greek scholar A. T. Robertson states that not only does eis signify "aim or purpose" (in order to) as in 1 Corinthians 2:7, it can just as well mean "on the basis or ground of (with reference to), Matthew 10:41; 12:41.

He states that, "the illustrations of both usages are numerous in the New Testament and the Koine (New Testament Greek) generally.

I'm glad you use AT Robertson. Notice how he says "there are numerous usages of both." Well guess what? He only uses Matt. 12:41 and nothing else! He wants you to believe there are many based on one example, but he basically lied here. There is only one. BTW, I asked you to show me one greek scholar who uses a parenthetical in Acts 2:38. I never asked about translating "of" because of.


"One will decide the use here (Acts 2:38) 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..." (Word Pictures of the New Testament, pp. 35-36).

Why do the overwhelming percentage of Greek scholars agree with Robertson? Because the rest of Scripture refutes baptismal regeneration. All one has to do is read Acts 10, concerning the account of Peter taking the gospel (which saves, Romans 1:16), to Cornelius and the Gentiles. As Peter proceeds through the gospel message (vs. 34-43), the Scriptures relate that the gift of the Holy Spirit was received upon believing by these Gentiles before they were baptized in water (10:44-48; 11:17-18). Additionally, the Scripture teaches that this is the same way all are saved (Acts 11:15-18, 15:7-11).

This was taken from http://www.watchman.org/reltop/baptism.htm

So there is your one, A.T. Robertson, and according to the article, there are MANY others.



You're going to be a dispensationalist before you know it! Your right, in Acts 10 they did recieve the Holy Spirit before baptism. Guess what? You will never find that this is the case before Acts 9, which was Paul's conversion. Before Acts 9, baptism was ALWAYS for the remission of sins. It starts way back in Numbers.

Numbers 19:9
9 Then a man who is clean shall gather up the ashes of the heifer, and store them outside the camp in a clean place; and they shall be kept for the congregation of the children of Israel for the water of purification; it is for purifying from sin.

Mark 1:4
4 John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

Notice in verse 1, this is the "beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ"

Acts 2:38
38 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Mark 16:16
16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

All these verses show baptism for salvation and they all come before Acts 9! Interesting...

Here's the order of baptisms in the Bible:

1. Water only (ex. Mark 1:1-4)
2. Water, then Holy Spirit (ex. Acts 2:38)
3. Holy Spirit, then water (ex. Acts 10)
4. Holy Spirit only (ex. 1 Cor. 12:13, Eph. 4:4-5)

Check out what Paul says,

1 Corinthians 14-17
14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,
15 lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name.
16 Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other.
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.

Isn't it interesting that Paul thanks God for not baptizing any other, yet Peter or any of the 12 ever say anything even remotely His great commission. Paul said Christ did not send him to baptize, yet Christ sent the twelve to baptize. The method of salvation changed.

So yeah, baptism was necessary for salvation in Acts 2:38, but this doesn't have to contradict what Paul and others taught. This is where so many people get caught up. Dispensationalism is key, as all of these verses are my proof texts!

[SlaveofChrist]

First of all, I am a dispensationalist. Everybody is to some extent and for now I am still deciding the extent of my view. What I do know is that I DO NOT BELIEVE in this little mini dispensation you have created where we are saved by baptism for a few chapters in acts. I think it is a completely absurd heresy and you should be questioning your salvation if you believe that.

I'm glad you use AT Robertson. Notice how he says "there are numerous usages of both." Well guess what? He only uses Matt. 12:41 and nothing else! He wants you to believe there are many based on one example, but he basically lied here. There is only one. BTW, I asked you to show me one greek scholar who uses a parenthetical in Acts 2:38. I never asked about translating "of" because of.

Show me your source of this being only used once. I highly doubt that A.T. Robertson lied. I am going to have to take his word over yours until you show me otherwise. The article I quoted makes it clear that basically all Greek scholars translate eis because of in Acts 2:38 which solves the problem and proves that baptism is not necessary for salvation. It never was and never has been.

You will never find that this is the case before Acts 9, which was Paul's conversion. Before Acts 9, baptism was ALWAYS for the remission of sins. It starts way back in Numbers.

That is an absolute joke. I just read every verse in Acts chapters 1-9 that talks about baptism and there is one that makes it seem like baptism comes before the remission of sins, and that is Acts 2:38 but I've already explained the problem here.
If this debate is some sort of joke, please tell me. I dont see how anyone can possibly believe what you are saying. It is terribly upsetting to think that there is some "Christian" with a pseudonym "doogieduff" that believes in works righteousness based upon those passages.
Read Galatians, WE ARE NO LONGER UNDER THE LAW. We dont need to work for our salvation anymore.
Titus 3:5- We are saved not by the works of righteousness we have done
If you think you can work your way to heaven, you are going to have a rude awakening when you realize how close your works are going to get you.

What indication do we have that Titus 3:5, Ephesians 2:8-9, and half of Galatians and Romans only apply to believers after Acts 9?

THERE IS NONE!!
Open your eyes, look at the Bible, think about what it says, and cost off the yolk of bondage under which you labor and toil. By GRACE alone.

[doogieduff]

Today @ 11:27 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=92867#post92867)
SlaveofChrist:

First of all, I am a dispensationalist. Everybody is to some extent and for now I am still deciding the extent of my view. What I do know is that I DO NOT BELIEVE in this little mini dispensation you have created where we are saved by baptism for a few chapters in acts. I think it is a completely absurd heresy and you should be questioning your salvation if you believe that.

No need for the harsh words. I didn't say it was only in the beginning of Acts. Read my verses again. The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ starts in Mark 1:1-4, and from then until Acts 9, baptism was preached for salvation. Baptism was preached after Acts 9 by those who still only knew the system they were under before. But, baptism wasn't needed for salvation after Acts 9.



Show me your source of this being only used once. I highly doubt that A.T. Robertson lied. I am going to have to take his word over yours until you show me otherwise. The article I quoted makes it clear that basically all Greek scholars translate eis because of in Acts 2:38 which solves the problem and proves that baptism is not necessary for salvation. It never was and never has been.

Actually I have never heard of any greek scholar EVER teaching this except AT Robertson. I checked with my profs and they said the same thing. They said nobody ever even deals with it, so they never try and explain it away. I am correct in what AT Robertson said. I don't have the book or exact quote, but I will get it for you. He said it in his book, "Word Pictures and it's very hard to come across nowadays. But I know someone who has it, and I will get you the quote. He says that numerous times in the NT, "eis" is translated "because of" yet he only cites one example, and no one has ever shown me more. BTW, we're talking out of 1,773 times, no one has shown any "eis" translated "because of" and there's only one, which you've put forth, and it COULD BE. You definitely don't have the odds on your side.



That is an absolute joke. I just read every verse in Acts chapters 1-9 that talks about baptism and there is one that makes it seem like baptism comes before the remission of sins, and that is Acts 2:38 but I've already explained the problem here.
If this debate is some sort of joke, please tell me. I dont see how anyone can possibly believe what you are saying. It is terribly upsetting to think that there is some "Christian" with a pseudonym "doogieduff" that believes in works righteousness based upon those passages.
Read Galatians, WE ARE NO LONGER UNDER THE LAW. We dont need to work for our salvation anymore.
Titus 3:5- We are saved not by the works of righteousness we have done
If you think you can work your way to heaven, you are going to have a rude awakening when you realize how close your works are going to get you.

If you think that I'm preaching works for salvation today, you are wrong. I don't believe that, nor have I ever said that. I wholeheartedly agree with all your passages, but once again, those verses did not apply to believers before Acts 9.


What indication do we have that Titus 3:5, Ephesians 2:8-9, and half of Galatians and Romans only apply to believers after Acts 9?

THERE IS NONE!!
Open your eyes, look at the Bible, think about what it says, and cost off the yolk of bondage under which you labor and toil. By GRACE alone.

We have ample proof, and it will be up to you to take into fair consideration the evidence. Paul taught a faith and faith alone gospel for salvation. I challenge you to show me any of the apostles who preached this also. You won't find it. The twelve preached a works oriented salvation. Nobody but Paul preached taught belief in Death, Burial, and Resurrection for salvation. Why is that?

[doogieduff]

slaveofchrist,

Do you believe that no one (biblically) was ever saved by works? Was it always faith alone?

[mickiel]

But man will find one. No matter how many of you seek to find requirements and limitations and burdens or weights that make salvation seem hard to have, it will still be free and given by Christ to each man who is thristy. Thristy means alive, all men have life and thirst for its meaning. In Rev.21:6, eternal life is being given away, this baptism is from the spring of the water of life "without cost", without arguement, without meeting all the spiritual requirements "men" have listed.

[InquisitorKind]

Today @ 12:20 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=93296#post93296)
doogieduff:

slaveofchrist,

Do you believe that no one (biblically) was ever saved by works? Was it always faith alone?

I challenge you to find one example of a human saved by works.

~Matt

[Socrates]

SlaveofChrist is certainly right, and supported by Eph. 2:8-9:

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast.

Furthermore, over 200 times in the New Testament, the only condition of salvation listed is faith, which is pistis in Greek and means “belief”. For saving faith/belief, the right content of belief is essential: that Jesus is God (Rom. 10:9), and that He died for our sins, was buried and rose again from the dead (1 Cor. 15:1-4).

The 200 clear passages must be taken into account when interpreting certain Scriptural passages, which superficially seem to teach otherwise.

As noted, Acts 2:38 is one of the verses that baptismal regenerationists use (another is the spurious Mark 16:16 combined with the beginner's logical blunder of denying the antecedent -- see www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=91694#post91694 ). It says:

‘Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.’

‘For’ is the Greek word eis, and both the English and Greek have several meanings meanings, depending on the context. Certainly it sometimes means ‘in order to’ or ‘to achieve’, to obtain’ etc., which is the meaning baptismal regenerationist heretics ascribe to the for ‘for’ in this passage, e.g. a diver came up for air, meaning to obtain air. But this is not the only meaning, and SlaveOfChrist is certainly right about this. E.g., If I take an aspirin ‘for’ my headache, it certainly doesn’t mean that I’m taking it to ‘obtain’ a headache. Rather, the for ‘for’ here means ‘because of’. Similarly, a poster saying “Jesse James wanted for robbery”, “for” it would be unlikely to mean Jesse is wanted so he can commit a robbery; rather, it means he is wanted because he has committed a robbery.

So too in this passage, the word “for” signifies an action in the past—that we are baptized because we identify with the salvation Christ has already achieved for us. Otherwise, it would violate the entire tenor of the NT teaching on salvation by grace and not by works.

John MacArthur argues that it is also possible to take the clause “and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ” as parenthetical. Support for that interpretation comes from that fact that “repent” and “your” are plural, while “be baptized” is singular, thus setting it off from the rest of the sentence. If that interpretation is correct, the verse would read “Repent (and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ) for the forgiveness of your sins.” Forgiveness is thus connected with repentance, not baptism, in keeping with the consistent teaching of the New Testament (cf. Luke 24:47; John 3:18; Acts 5:31; 10:43; 13:38; 26:18; Ephesians 5:26).

[TheFiveSolas]

doogieduff:
Acts 2:38
38 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

This verse seems to show baptism for salvation. I don't know greek...


I'd be interested to see Jaltus' input on the following observations about the passage in question.



1) The Greek verb translated "repent" is second person plural and in the active voice.
2) The Greek verb translated "be baptized" is third person singular and in the passive voice.
3) The Greek pronoun translated "your" (in "remission of your sins") is second person plural.
4) Therefore, the grammatical connection is between "repent" and "for the remission of your sins", not between "be baptized" and "for the remission of your sins."


Quoted from "Jesus Only" Churches, pg. 58., E. Calvin Beisner.

[GrayPilgrim]

From Daniel Wallace's Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p 369f.

Ει&sigmaf (eis)


A Basic uses

Spatial:into, toward, in
Temporal:for, thought
Purpose:for, in order to, to
Result:[i]so that, with the result that
Reference/Respect:with respect to, with reference to
Advantage:for
Disadvantage:against
In place of εν (en) (with its various nuances, [he lists 10])

[doogieduff]

Yesterday @ 12:09 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=93352#post93352)
InquisitorKind:



I challenge you to find one example of a human saved by works.

~Matt

Let me clarify myself before I go on. believe that there is a difference between the "method" and the "means" of salvation. The "means" is always the same. The blood of Jesus Christ is the agent that saves all men who are in a position of salvation. The blood is the agent that washes away sin for all mankind. The "method" is a bit different.

Genesis 15:5-6
5 Then He brought him outside and said, "Look now toward heaven, and count the stars if you are able to number them." And He said to him, "So shall your descendants be."
6 And he believed in the Lord, and He accounted it to him for righteousness.

The point here is, Abram did not "trust in Christ," but believed what God asked him to believe to be in a position of salvation. God asked Abram to "believe that his seed would be like the stars of the sky." Abram "believed God, and was accounted righteousness."

This is a consistent theme throughout the Bible. To address the "method," we see a few things. God is Gracious to send His Son to die for the sin of the world. Man must have faith to believe in God. God sometimes changes the way He asks man to show faith. This is the "method" of salvation. If man believes what God tells him, and in some cases does physical acts that God asks by faith, the "means" of salvation, or the saving blood of Christ is applied to that person.

Yet another example: What did Noah need to believe to be saved? Noah did not believe that "Christ would die on the cross for Noah's sins and be raised from the dead," but Noah believed that if he did what God asked (build an ark for the saving of his soul), he would be in a right standing with God. God looked at Noah's faithfulness and applied the future blood of Christ to him.

[doogieduff]

Yesterday @ 12:27 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=93361#post93361)
Socrates:

SlaveofChrist is certainly right, and supported by Eph. 2:8-9:

Furthermore, over 200 times in the New Testament, the only condition of salvation listed is faith, which is pistis in Greek and means “belief”. For saving faith/belief, the right content of belief is essential: that Jesus is God (Rom. 10:9), and that He died for our sins, was buried and rose again from the dead (1 Cor. 15:1-4).

The 200 clear passages must be taken into account when interpreting certain Scriptural passages, which superficially seem to teach otherwise.

As noted, Acts 2:38 is one of the verses that baptismal regenerationists use (another is the spurious Mark 16:16 combined with the beginner's logical blunder of denying the antecedent -- see www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=91694#post91694 ). It says:

Are you guys not hearing what I'm saying. I agree with Ephesians 2:8-9!!!! But why does this have to be a blanket staement for the entire bible? Especially when we see otherwise. Who, besides Paul, preached faith alone for salvation?

Noah, by faith, built an ark and to this God accounted him righteousness. By faith, God asked Noah to perform a physical act, and this is what he was saved for. When you preach the gospel, do you tell someone that in order to be saved, they must build an ark? Of course not. And why not? It did save Noah. Well, God has aked us to show faith in a different way. Noah did not believe in Jesus Christ death burial and resurrection for his salvation.


‘For’ is the Greek word eis, and both the English and Greek have several meanings meanings, depending on the context. Certainly it sometimes means ‘in order to’ or ‘to achieve’, to obtain’ etc., which is the meaning baptismal regenerationist heretics ascribe to the for ‘for’ in this passage, e.g. a diver came up for air, meaning to obtain air. But this is not the only meaning, and SlaveOfChrist is certainly right about this. E.g., If I take an aspirin ‘for’ my headache, it certainly doesn’t mean that I’m taking it to ‘obtain’ a headache. Rather, the for ‘for’ here means ‘because of’. Similarly, a poster saying “Jesse James wanted for robbery”, “for” it would be unlikely to mean Jesse is wanted so he can commit a robbery; rather, it means he is wanted because he has committed a robbery.

So too in this passage, the word “for” signifies an action in the past—that we are baptized because we identify with the salvation Christ has already achieved for us. Otherwise, it would violate the entire tenor of the NT teaching on salvation by grace and not by works.

Give me some sort of evidence that iy should be translated this. There is none except your trying to squggle your way around what is a problem passage for your beliefs. What if I went to every verse and found a translation that merely "COULD BE." I would change the meaning of half of the bible. Out of 1,773 times "eis" is translated in the NT, it ALWAYS shows aim or purpose. There's one instance, ONE, where it COULD BE translated "because of." There's absolutely no ground to stand on. EVERY TIME IT IS TRANSLATED IT SHOWS AIM OR PURPOSE! There's no getting around this.


John MacArthur argues that it is also possible to take the clause “and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ” as parenthetical. Support for that interpretation comes from that fact that “repent” and “your” are plural, while “be baptized” is singular, thus setting it off from the rest of the sentence. If that interpretation is correct, the verse would read “Repent (and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ) for the forgiveness of your sins.” Forgiveness is thus connected with repentance, not baptism, in keeping with the consistent teaching of the New Testament (cf. Luke 24:47; John 3:18; Acts 5:31; 10:43; 13:38; 26:18; Ephesians 5:26).


"Every" is partitive genitive and distributes the singular among the plural. No greek scholar teaches a parenthetical here.

[Jaltus]

1) The Greek verb translated "repent" is second person plural and in the active voice.
2) The Greek verb translated "be baptized" is third person singular and in the passive voice.
3) The Greek pronoun translated "your" (in "remission of your sins") is second person plural.
4) Therefore, the grammatical connection is between "repent" and "for the remission of your sins", not between "be baptized" and "for the remission of your sins."


This is an interesting argument and seemingly quite valid, but it overlooks the use of fhsin in the text. Fhsin introduces the indirect discourse of "each must be baptized," something which is important.

Of course, the fhsin could be spurious as well (major text critical problem) and the link is still the pronoun which should be third person to link.

Of course it does not say "each must be baptized" rather it says "each of YOU must be baptized," and thus the argument loses all merit on that point.

Sorry, TFS, it is a good idea, but it misses the fhsin and the umwn with the eskatoV.

Mind you, i am not saying DD is write, but I am saying that this specific argument against his reading of this verse is not adequate. There are other arguments which work fine, with the strongest being the canonical understanding of salvation as opposed to this limited understanding.

[TheFiveSolas]

Jaltus,
Thanks :thumb: I had found the argument intriguing, but had no way of evaluating it.

[SlaveofChrist]

Doogie- I just talked to my local Greek scholar, well, he's not really a scholar but is very knowledgeable concerning Greek.
He has a list of times where eis was translated because of, and not only that, to translate it any other way would be heretical. Once again I ask for your source for your list where eis is never used?? Have a good one.

[Jacob]

05-10-2003 @ 01:55 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=92475#post92475)
doogieduff:

1. Water only (ex. Mark 1:1-4)
2. Water, then Holy Spirit (ex. Acts 2:38)
3. Holy Spirit, then water (ex. Acts 10)
4. Holy Spirit only (ex. 1 Cor. 12:13, Eph. 4:4-5)


OK, these are "baptisms" in the Bible. Don't forget that the Bible speaks of at least 2 types of Baptism: Water & Spirit...

Acts 2:38
38 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

& note what Peter wrote:

1Pe 3:21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Isn't "the gift of the Holy Spirit", in this context, virtually synonymous with repentence & Salvation?

Starting with Peter's explanation of how baptism saves (1 Pet 3:21), we see that it is not water baptism which saves, but a baptism that is described in terms similar to repentence ("not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ").

This helps clarify what was said in Acts, where Peter is speaking about repenting, being baptized, receiving the Holy Spirit, & being saved. Water baptism just signifies Spirit Baptism. It is Spirit Baptism which "saves".

Keep in mind that Acts is a record of what Peter said in a spontaneous preaching opportunity, not necessarily intended to set a perfect precedent. What he later wrote are his reflections on the same truth, when he had time to write clearly.

Jacob

[George Blaisdell]

Bill the Cat: wrote:

A really good post!

> Now let us return to our discussion of Acts 2:38. We have already seen that faith (which would include repentance), not baptism, is essential for the forgiveness of sins. This is clearly seen in Peter’s very next sermon, found in Acts 3:19—“Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out.” Notice that in this verse Peter says nothing about water baptism.

I haven't looked at the Greek, but might not the "be converted" mean baptism?


In reference to the verse directly, it is possible, that the phrase is actually part of a chiasmus (inverted parallelism) and should be connected not with the command "Be baptized" but with the command "Repent." The verse contains two commands and two prepositional phrases which can be represented by the following chiasmus:



A Repent


B Be Baptized


B In the Name of Jesus Christ


A For the remission of sins




> In English we would best represent this structure by using a parenthesis: "Repent (and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ) for the remission of sins." This is exactly what Acts 3:19 teaches (only Peter there omits the parenthesis). In Acts 3:19 Peter could have said, "Repent (and be baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ) so that your sins may be blotted out!"

Actually, the argument from chiasmus argues against you, for by it, the heart of the sentence is placed squarely upon baptism, and not just any ol' baptism, but the one that is in the name of Jesus Christ.

Using parentheses is not the way to Englishise a chiasm, but instead to group the elements according to A:A'::B:B'. [or the reverse, B:B'::A:A'...

Hence, it would read Repent for the remission of sins and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ - Which is weak English, or the reverse, which captures the Greek better in English syntax: Be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ and repent for the forgiveness of sins...

Yet both miss the cumulative effect of the Greek: "Repent and be baptized each of you upon the Name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins."

For it builds: Repent... Be baptized... Each of you... In the name of Jesus Christ... Unto the remission of your sins...

And having reached the culmination of remission, the very next word is kai [AND], followed by a change in verbal tense, to the future: "And you [pl = each of you] SHALL RECEIVE the gift of the Holy Spirit."

That is how it works... cumulatively... With the chiastic structure imbedded, and entailing the pivotal [eg central = B:B'] role of baptism...

geo

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

George, it was a post that i copied from a web site. I thought it was interesting and i wanted to see the responses. I don't think it's Chiasmus at all. That's mainly a Hebrew construct, and this is in Greek. I do not think that "be converted" is baptism at all.

[George Blaisdell]

Bill the Cat: writes:

> George, it was a post that I copied from a web site. I thought it was interesting and I wanted to see the responses. I don't think it's Chiasmus at all.

Technically, I agree - It is not chiasmus because it is not a series of sentences, yet the parallel [eg chiastic] structure is embedded.

> That's mainly a Hebrew construct, and this is in Greek.

Greek and Hebrew both make extensive use of chiastic structures. They are characteristic of a culture that is primarily oral, with very little and very limited written material... It is an organizational method of thought that embeds mnemonic structures, helping people to remember what is said...

> I do not think that be converted is baptism at all.

You might be right -

What other meaning would he have had in mind, if not entry into Christ in the Church, which is by baptism in those days?

geo

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

Today @ 03:07 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=96389#post96389)
George Blaisdell:

What other meaning would he have had in mind, if not entry into Christ in the Church, which is by baptism in those days?

geo

The NASB translates it this way:
Act 3:19 "Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord;


It says to return, I take that to mean return to God, whom they had abandoned and crucified.

Convert is the same word used in James 5:19-20 where it refers to one who converts or turns away from paganism to Christ

[George Blaisdell]

Bill the Cat: wrote:



The NASB translates it this way:
Act 3:19 "Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord;


> It says to return, I take that to mean return to God, whom they had abandoned and crucified.

It is used intransitively [unless I am wrong!]

2. intransitively
1. to turn to one's self
2. to turn one's self about, turn back
3. to return, turn back, come back

metanohsate oun kai epistreyate eis to exaleifqhnai umwn tas amartias

Repent therefore and turn back unto the blotting out of you the sins...

> Convert is the same word used in James 5:19-20 where it refers to one who converts or turns away from paganism to Christ

Yes, you are right - It is a word that denotes the ACTION of repentance, which is itself a changing of mind, and this is the change in behavior that leads to the change of mind, as the soul heals in its new actions, yet would be re-wounded in repetition of old-man behavior...

Thanks!

geo

[Waterrock]

Dear Jaltus and friends,

The idea that Peter, in Acts 2:38, really did offer baptism in order for individuals to receive forgiveness of sins, but this arrangement was superceded when Cornelius and his household became Christians, seems like a convoluted way of conceding a grammatical/exegetical point in Acts 2:38 but then coming up with a way to say, "But that doesn't really make a difference for us today."

It appeared to me that the idea of a mini-dispensation in Acts was rejected, so I will not pursue the task of showing why it is unsound (unless DD really, really wants me to). But we still have Acts 2:38 to deal with.

Jaltus proposed, as one reason why baptism should not be a requirement for one's becoming a Christian, the following reason: "If baptism was a requirement, one would expect it to be listed every time."

Not so. When one considers the New Testament's references to things which save, lots of things -- belief, confession, baptism, hope, etc. -- are in the mix, but nothing gets mentioned every single time. The authors of the New Testament, like other writers, acknowledged the salient information in the heads of their readers, and therefore did not ordinarily re-teach what they already knew unless there was some clear reason to do so (in defense of a questioned tenet, for example).

Jesus taught that unless you repent, you will perish (Luke 13:3,5). J. said that Paul "states that confession of Christ as Lord and belief in the resurrection alone are enough for salvation (Rom 10:9)." I guess Jesus and Paul disagree, eh? Most certainly not! Paul is just writing with an awareness of what his readers already know; he's not implying that repentance (or baptism) is not necessary.

Also, J. said, "According to Paul, baptism is the symbol of these things."

I don't see the chapter and verse in which Paul says, "Baptism is the symbol of these things." In Romans 6:3-5 he parallels baptism with the death of the old man, and he says (using the NIV here), "We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life."

Q: According to Romans 6:4, why were we buried with Christ through baptism?
A: In order that we may live a new life."

That does not fit my idea of an entirely figurative and symbolic act. There's another (several, actually, but in the interest of brevity...) reference that seems particularly relevant to the question at hand: Colossians 2:9-12.

In that passage, Paul states that the Colossians were "circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature [Note: NIV translation-tinging is going on here, with the result that Paul's analogy is diminished], not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God..."

Faith is in the equation. Baptism is also in the equation, and Paul compares it to circumcision. Circumcision was the covenant-sign of the Abrahamic covenant; baptism is the sign of the covenant of grace.

In the case of the Abrahamic covenant, though, circumcision is more than just a sign. It was a /requirement/. The male who refused circumcision "will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant" (Genesis 17:14). Entry into a covenant-relationship with God in the old covenant involved circumcision; to reject circumcision was to reject the covenant. I think that it is a sound extrapolation to say (using the parallel in Col. 2:11-2) that in the new covenant, to reject baptism is to reject the covenant.

Now, does that mean that a person who believes, repents, and confesses in the middle of a desert cannot enter heaven? No, just as the various verses about confession do not disqualify a mute person from salvation. God is not a legalist. But for those of us who are not in the middle of a desert, our teaching -- and the method by which we offer salvation -- should measure up to the Biblical plumb line, in which baptism is to the relationship of the soul and God what a wedding is the the relationship of a man and a woman. It is more than a mere sign; it is no simple afterthought, and under normal circumstances the relationship is not recognized by the church without it.

Yours in Christ,
Waterrock

[Rubia Warren]

I am just loving this thread. Cheers to Doogieduff for starting it.:cheers: I LOVE it, I tell you!!!!!

[EdJones]

We should remember that Acts 2:38 is a response to a question that is being asked in (vs. 37) What shall we do?" The question is being asked by a group of people within a Nation to whom a national message has been addressed, in regards to their RULER - You can read Romans - Philemon back into the passage until you are red-white-blue in the face, but you cannot make it refer to a sinner trying to find "the way to Heaven" without wresting the scriptures to your own destruction. There is no "plan of Salvation" in the chapter, at least as it is revealed and preached from (Acts 8 to 29).

[George Blaisdell]

EdJones writes:

> We should remember that Acts 2:38 is a response to a question that is being asked in (vs. 37) "What shall we do?"

Indeed it is a response to a question, and the answer given is for them to become Christians...

> The question is being asked by a group of people within a Nation to whom a national message has been addressed, in regards to their RULER -

The question was asked by Jews, whose nation had rejected Christ and crucified Him....

> You can read Romans - Philemon back into the passage until you are red-white-blue in the face,

No need - It is all right here...

> but you cannot make it ["Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."] refer to a sinner trying to find "the way to Heaven" without wresting the scriptures to your own destruction.

Well, the passage itself continues:

39 "For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all who are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call."

Now am I understanding you aright that it is your understanding that this instruction, which is unto "all who are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call....", is actually meant for some other people than all who are called by the Lord?

> There is no "plan of Salvation" in the chapter, at least as it is revealed and preached from (Acts 8 to 29).

Look - It simply tells people, via the apostle Peter, that they are to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, and they will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit... And that this applies to all, and not only to those right here, and their children, but to those afar off, even all those called by Christ.

Do you really think that this understanding is some kind of twisting of scripture? It seem very plain and straight foreward and simple to me...

geo

[Warcraft3]

And so this discussion continues to amaze me.............

Let me answer two questions birefly,

"Did Peter and Paul preach different gospels?"
NO!!!

"Does Acts 2:38 teach that water baptism is necessary for Salvation?"
NO!!!


:smile: I hope that clears things up.



Russ

[George Blaisdell]

Russ writes:

> And so this discussion continues to amaze me.............

I bet you are a fan of "Amazing Grace"!

> Let me answer two questions birefly,

> "Did Peter and Paul preach different gospels?"

> NO!!!

> "Does Acts 2:38 teach that water baptism is necessary for Salvation?"

> NO!!!

So what teaching can one receive from Acts 2:38?

Does it teach baptism for the remission of sins?

Does it teach that the gift of the Holy Spirit follows baptism?

Does it teach baptism in the name of Christ?

The answer to all these would seem to be yes...

Does it teach that there is a water baptism that is a confirmation or outward expression of an inner spiritual baptism for the remission of sins?

Does it teach a baptism in the privacy of one's own mind?

Does it teach that the Holy Spirit baptizes us spiritually outside the Body of Christ?

The answer to these would seem to be no...

Does it teach that there is a connection, and indeed a sequential connection, between baptism in water and the gift of the Holy Spirit?

And the answer to that would seem to be yes. Which is why the Mystery of Baptism in to the Body of Christ is done by the Body of Christ, the Church, by His ministers, the servants of the Lord, and THEN ***shall*** be received the gift of the Holy Spirit...

All that seems pretty clear, Russ... Wouldn't you say [granted, in amazement, mind you] the same? ':smile:'

geo

[Waterrock]

Ed,

As George said, it's pretty straightforward. Perhaps I am just not using my imagination, but istm that it's fair to ask, "If Peter's statement in Acts 2:38 isn't a way to say that baptism is a step into salvation, what would it take to say such a thing?"

(Btw, there are only 28, not 29, chapters in Acts.)

EdJones: "you cannot make [Acts 2:38] refer to a sinner trying to find "the way to Heaven" without wresting the scriptures to your own destruction."

Eh? [Perhaps we in a bit of a hurry to declare someone anathema today, Ed??] Let's get a few things squared away:

(a) were those in the crowd sinners? Yes.
(b) were they conscious of their guilt, and were they seeking an escape from its consequences? Yes.
(c) did Peter offer an escape from the consequences of their sin? Yes.
(d) Did that escape involve baptism? Yes.

Ergo your answer (however Scripturally worded) is incorrect.

As George said: "Look - It simply tells people, via the apostle Peter, that they are to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, and they will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit... And that this applies to all, and not only to those right here, and their children, but to those afar off, even all those called by Christ."

Furthermore, why do you think Luke is preserving these statements of Peter's? Do you think it is to communicate to his readers, in the A.D. 60's, some sort of invitation to some sort of baptism which the church was no longer offering??? It is much more reasonable, imho, to conclude that Luke selected this data to illustrate the kind of invitation that Peter offered -- so that it would be /emulated,/ not rejected.

Yours in Christ,
Waterrock

[Warcraft3]

George:

I will respond to your post when I get back. If I forget just remind me with a PM.

**Notice**
This will be my last post in this thread until sometime after June 22. I have to go away with the Reserves for two weeks and I need tonight and tomorrow to pack and get ready. So I will see you all when I get back.



Russ

[George Blaisdell]

Today
steadele wrote:

George:

I will respond to your post when I get back. If I forget just remind me with a PM.

**Notice**
This will be my last post in this thread until sometime after June 22. I have to go away with the Reserves for two weeks and I need tonight and tomorrow to pack and get ready. So I will see you all when I get back.



Russ

Well bon voyage, Russ - Be well and be safe... You are in my prayers...

geo

[Arminian]

http://members.aol.com/mjay25/ac238.html

[ollie]

06-04-2003 @ 09:46 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=117178#post117178)
George Blaisdell:

Russ writes:

> And so this discussion continues to amaze me.............

I bet you are a fan of "Amazing Grace"!

> Let me answer two questions birefly,

> "Did Peter and Paul preach different gospels?"

> NO!!!

> "Does Acts 2:38 teach that water baptism is necessary for Salvation?"

> NO!!!

So what teaching can one receive from Acts 2:38?

Does it teach baptism for the remission of sins?

Does it teach that the gift of the Holy Spirit follows baptism?

Does it teach baptism in the name of Christ?

The answer to all these would seem to be yes...

Does it teach that there is a water baptism that is a confirmation or outward expression of an inner spiritual baptism for the remission of sins?

Does it teach a baptism in the privacy of one's own mind?

Does it teach that the Holy Spirit baptizes us spiritually outside the Body of Christ?

The answer to these would seem to be no...

Does it teach that there is a connection, and indeed a sequential connection, between baptism in water and the gift of the Holy Spirit?

And the answer to that would seem to be yes. Which is why the Mystery of Baptism in to the Body of Christ is done by the Body of Christ, the Church, by His ministers, the servants of the Lord, and THEN ***shall*** be received the gift of the Holy Spirit...

All that seems pretty clear, Russ... Wouldn't you say [granted, in amazement, mind you] the same? ':smile:'

geo
If the hope of salvation isn't acheived by doing what Peter preached then what does Acts 2:47 mean?
The Lord was adding to the church daily such as should be saved. They must have been repenting, being baptized and receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit as they were the such as should be saved.


Acts2:36. Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
37. Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
38. Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
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.
40. And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.
41. Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
42. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.
43. And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles.
44. And all that believed were together, and had all things common;
45. And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.
46. And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,




Acts 2:47. Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.


What were these salvaged or saved from?

40. And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation


Ollie

[George Blaisdell]

ollie writes:


> If the hope of salvation isn't acheived by doing what Peter preached then what does Acts 2:47 mean?
The Lord was adding to the church daily such as should be saved. They must have been repenting, being baptized and receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit as they were the such as should be saved.

Plain as plum pudding...


Acts2:36. Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
37. Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
38. Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
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.
40. And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.
41. Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
42. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.
43. And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles.
44. And all that believed were together, and had all things common;
45. And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.
46. And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,

Faith in action...


Acts 2:47. Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.


> What were these salvaged or saved from?

Sin and death... The hallmarks of this 'untoward generation'...

40. And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation

I checked the Greek, and it does not say "save yourselves", but is the aorist passive imperative of the verb 'to save', and hence is better translated as "be saved" from...

Baptism into Christ is the hallmark of a Christian...


Ollie

geo

[dbaeder]

I realize that the most recent post on this thread is almost three years old, but it is the first time I have come across it. Why is it that every one seems to skirt around this passage, rather than simply accept its plain and simple meaning. Some have accepted what it says at face value, only to dismiss it as only pertaining to a past dispensation. This is simply an assertion. There is simply no evidence to support this assertion. Others have said, "No baptism cannot be for the forgiveness of sins," and have posted various reasons for wishing to seperate baptism from remission of sins. Let's see if we can use a series of syllogisms to analize the argument.

Major premise: To be saved means to be at one with God.
Minor premise: Sin seperates us from God.
Conclusion: To be saved one's sins must be remitted.

So far, I think we're all on the same page.

Major premise: We are saved by grace, through faith.
Minor premise: To be saved one's sins must be remitted.
Conclusion: Our sins are forgiven through faith.

Again, I think we're all in agreement so far, right?

Major premise: Our sins are forgiven though faith.
Minor premise: Baptism is a work, not faith.
Conclusion: Baptism is not for the remission of sins.

If I'm not mistaken, that is the way most of you view this question of Acts 2:38 and baptism "for the remission of sins." Am I right?

The problem is in the minor premise of the third syllogysm. That baptism is a work and not included in faith is an unproved assumption, and a false assumption at that. If it can be shown that baptism is not a work, but is in fact, faith in God, then the correct third syllogism would be:

Major premise: Our sins are forgiven though faith.
Minor premise: Baptism is faith, not a work.
Conclusion: Baptism is for the remission of sins.

The assumption is often made that since baptism involves my doing something, than it must be a work. This is a false assumption on several grounds. Faith is doing something (i.e. believing, trusting), yet it is not a work. Repentance is doing something (i.e. turning from sin), yet it is not a work. Doing something does not make it a work. What then does make something a work? When what I do obligates someone else, in this case, God. Paul tells us that "the wages of sin is death." When I sin, I have earned something, in this case death. In other words, when someone sins, they earn (deserve) death. Now let's look at faith. When one believes (has faith) does that person deserve (earn) salvation? No way. Salvation is by grace (not merit). Same thing with repentance. Repentance doesn't earn anyone salvation. Same thing with baptism. Salvation doesn't earn anyone baptism. Whether we are referring to faith, repentance or baptism, if our idea is that I desrve to be saved on the basis of any one of these, I have accepted a false gospel. Faith doesn't save you; Repentance doesn't save you; baptism doesn't save you. God saves you by his grace. The assumption that doing something makes it a work is just plain false. There is no biblical justification for that conclusion. It is a human assumption, and one that is false.

Second, by the law of non-contradiction, baptism can not be of faith and contrary to faith. It must be either one or the other. If baptism is of faith, then our fourth syllogism above is correct. But, if baptism is contrary to faith, only then would our third syllogism above be correct. Faith and works are two contrary categories. If baptism is of works, than it cannot be of faith. If baptism is of faith, then it cannot be of works. Which then is it? There is only one verse that directly deals with the subject. One verse addresses faith, works and baptism. That verse is Colossians 2:12. This verse tells us that in BAPTISM we are raised with Christ through FAITH in the WORK of God. In Baptism, according to this verse, we are trusting God to work in us, that is, raise us up with Christ (salvation by grace through faith).

Third, look at all the scriptures which teach this very thought. Look at the plain and simple meaning of these texts. You may have been taught that these verses mean something else, but I urge you to see what each verse says before you decide what it means!

Mark 16:16. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Acts 2:38. And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Acts 22:16. And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.'

Romans 6:3-6. Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin.

Galatians 3:26-27. for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Colossians 2:12. In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.

Titus 3:5. he 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,

1 Peter 3:21. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,