Poll on what Acts 2:38 was intended to mean

[John Reece]

Edit: Perhaps I should reiterate; I do not believe that baptism is absolutely required for the forgiveness of sins.

Do you believe that repentance is absolutely required for the forgiveness of sins?

In his 1990 Eerdmans commentary on the Greek text of Acts, F. F. Bruce has this at 2:38 (brackets added):

εἰς ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ὑμῶν [for the forgiveness of your sins] ― To be taken with μετανοήσατε [repent] as well as with βαπτισθήτω [be baptized] (cf. 3:19; 5:31; Lk. 24:37).

Here are the verses referenced by Bruce in his comment:

Acts 3:19. Therefore repent and turn back so that your sins may be wiped out

Acts 5:31. God exalted him to his right hand as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.

Luke 24:45-47. ⁴⁵ Then he opened their minds so they could understand the scriptures, ⁴⁶ and said to them, “Thus it stands written that the Christ would suffer and would rise from the dead on the third day, ⁴⁷ and repentance for the forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.¹

Of the two verbs (μετανοήσατε [repent] and βαπτισθήτω [be baptized]) with which the phrase ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ὑμῶν [for the forgiveness of your sins] is to be taken, is the first absolutely required for the forgiveness of sins while the second is not?

Does the answer to that question have any relevance to the force of the fact that grammatically εἰς [for] has the sense of purpose in Acts 2:38?

[John Reece]

The current slowness and infirmity of my mind ― symptoms of age and illness ― have been exposed for all to see in my responses in this thread and in the related thread in Biblical Languages 301.

My initial thought in response to the OP in the BL 301 thread was to affirm the standard set forth in Zerwick, BDAG, etc.; that is, that εἰς in Acts 2:38 has the sense of purpose.

However, when I read the comment by Robertson, who was indeed a genuine expert, I was easily swayed by what he wrote, sharing as I do his theological perspective.

Then, when One Bad Pig and BookerG challenged Robertson's exegesis, I could only agree with their arguments with regard to the grammar.

But the notion that baptism is an essential prerequisite to salvation kept bothering me, so I was still sympathetic to comments by Sparko and RBerman enough to "amen" their comments.

To my mind (however weak and unstable it may now be), the comment by Bruce in my prior post absolutely confirms the fact that εἰς in Acts has the sense of purpose ― because of the fact that "repentance" as well as "baptism" must be taken with the clause "for the forgiveness of your sins."

Kudos to One Bad Pig for all his comments, especially the Edit added to his last post.

[One Bad Pig]

Do you believe that repentance is absolutely required for the forgiveness of sins?

Yes.

In his 1990 Eerdmans commentary on the Greek text of Acts, F. F. Bruce has this at 2:38 (brackets added):

εἰς ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ὑμῶν [for the forgiveness of your sins] ― To be taken with μετανοήσατε [repent] as well as with βαπτισθήτω [be baptized] (cf. 3:19; 5:31; Lk. 24:37).

Here are the verses referenced by Bruce in his comment:

Acts 3:19. Therefore repent and turn back so that your sins may be wiped out

Acts 5:31. God exalted him to his right hand as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.

Luke 24:45-47. ⁴⁵ Then he opened their minds so they could understand the scriptures, ⁴⁶ and said to them, “Thus it stands written that the Christ would suffer and would rise from the dead on the third day, ⁴⁷ and repentance for the forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.¹

Of the two verbs (μετανοήσατε [repent] and βαπτισθήτω [be baptized]) with which the phrase ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ὑμῶν [for the forgiveness of your sins] is to be taken, is the first absolutely required for the forgiveness of sins while the second is not?

That is my understanding, for reasons I'll set forth below.

Does the answer to that question have any relevance to the force of the fact that grammatically εἰς [for] has the sense of purpose in Acts 2:38?

As far as I can tell, the sense of purpose applies to both repentance and baptism, but my knowledge of Greek grammar is nearly nonexistent. The difference lies in the fact that repentance is always possible, but baptism is in some instances not possible. In my opinion, it is obedience that is truly required - and Jesus commanded that disciples be baptized. If we say we repent, but do not follow His commands, is that true repentance? On the other hand, if death follows repentance before there is opportunity for baptism, that does not prevent the forgiveness of our sins; God is not a legalist.

[nrajeff]

The current slowness and infirmity of my mind ― symptoms of age and illness ― have been exposed for all to see in my responses in this thread and in the related thread in Biblical Languages 301.

My initial thought in response to the OP in the BL 301 thread was to affirm the standard set forth in Zerwick, BDAG, etc.; that is, that εἰς in Acts 2:38 has the sense of purpose.

However, when I read the comment by Robertson, who was indeed a genuine expert, I was easily swayed by what he wrote, sharing as I do his theological perspective.

Then, when One Bad Pig and BookerG challenged Robertson's exegesis, I could only agree with their arguments with regard to the grammar.

But the notion that baptism is an essential prerequisite to salvation kept bothering me, so I was still sympathetic to comments by Sparko and RBerman enough to "amen" their comments.

To my mind (however weak and unstable it may now be), the comment by Bruce in my prior post absolutely confirms the fact that εἰς in Acts has the sense of purpose ― because of the fact that "repentance" as well as "baptism" must be taken with the clause "for the forgiveness of your sins."

Kudos to One Bad Pig for all his comments, especially the Edit added to his last post.

So if I understand your position correctly, your actual position is that interpreting

"baptism for the remission of sins" as meaning

"baptism for the purpose of remitting sins" is very likely to be a fairly accurate interpretation of what the author of Acts meant.

I hope I have inferred correctly.

And sorry to hear about your health problems.

[nrajeff]

He's allowed to change his mind.

Yes, he is. And I am allowed to note the inconsistency and ask for an explanation of it. Which I hereby do.

[Brown Cat]

Has anyone here read JP Holding's article, Is Baptism Required for Salvation? In it he refers to something he calls the "Semitic Totality Concept."

This concept, as I best understand it presents the idea that, to the Jewish mind at the time of Acts 2, thought of man as a unified whole comprised of spirit and body and that actions must of necessity follow deeply held thoughts. IOW, what we really are is what we will eventually do. Holding writes:

Behind much of the thought in the Bible lies a "peculiarly Semitic" idea of a "unitive notion of human personality." [Dahl, Resurrection of the Body, 59] This notion combined aspects of the human person that we, in modern times, often speak of as separate entities: Nausea is thought of as a condition of the soul and not the stomach (Num. 21:5); companionship is said to be refreshing to the bowels (Philemon 7); and the fear of God is health to the navel (Prov. 3:8). ...

Applied to the role of works following faith, this means that there can be no decision without corresponding action, for the total person will inevitably reflect a choice that is made. Thought and action are so linked under the Semitic Totality paradigm that Clark warns us [An Approach to the Theology of the Sacraments, 10]:

The Hebraic view of man as an animated body and its refusal to make any clear-cut division into soul and body militates against the making of so radical a distinction between material and spiritual, ceremonial and ethical effects.

Thus, what we would consider separate actions of conversion, confession and obedience in the form of works would be considered by the Hebrews to be an act in totality. "Both the act and the meaning of the act mattered -- the two formed for the first Christians an indivisible unity." [Flemington, New Testament Doctrine of Baptism, 111]

Now moving onto the thread's subject of Acts 2:37-38, JP Holding adds:
(BTW mods, please don't whack me for too much copy pasta. I'm trying to not do more than necessary )

Acts 2:37-8 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? 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.

A key here is the word "for" (eis) - a word that can mean for or because of. If eis is taken to mean "for" then it is taken to mean that baptism is essential to salvation; if it means "because of", then it is not. However, "into" is the closest approximation of eis in this verse, so that here Peter is telling the crowd to be "baptized into the remission of sins."

Read in light of the Semitic Totality Concept, it indicates that believers will practice this behavior to validate their commitment to Christ. Baptism is just one part of that behavior that is inextricably linked to repentance and salvation.

I see something similar when I come to Romans 10:9-10.

9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Now does this mean that one isn't saved before they openly confess Christ before others? I'm confident that this isn't so. Rather, if one possesses a saving faith in Christ this person will naturally want to confess Him before others. This good work WILL follow the spiritually regenerative and cleansing work of the new birth.

This is somewhat of a third view here besides the two options in the poll, but I began to see signs of it in John Reece's posts. Thanks very much, John, and I hope you get to feeling better soon.

[One Bad Pig]

Has anyone here read JP Holding's article, Is Baptism Required for Salvation? In it he refers to something he calls the "Semitic Totality Concept."

This concept, as I best understand it presents the idea that, to the Jewish mind at the time of Acts 2, thought of man as a unified whole comprised of spirit and body and that actions must of necessity follow deeply held thoughts. IOW, what we really are is what we will eventually do. Holding writes:

Behind much of the thought in the Bible lies a "peculiarly Semitic" idea of a "unitive notion of human personality." [Dahl, Resurrection of the Body, 59] This notion combined aspects of the human person that we, in modern times, often speak of as separate entities: Nausea is thought of as a condition of the soul and not the stomach (Num. 21:5); companionship is said to be refreshing to the bowels (Philemon 7); and the fear of God is health to the navel (Prov. 3:8). ...

Applied to the role of works following faith, this means that there can be no decision without corresponding action, for the total person will inevitably reflect a choice that is made. Thought and action are so linked under the Semitic Totality paradigm that Clark warns us [An Approach to the Theology of the Sacraments, 10]:

The Hebraic view of man as an animated body and its refusal to make any clear-cut division into soul and body militates against the making of so radical a distinction between material and spiritual, ceremonial and ethical effects.

Thus, what we would consider separate actions of conversion, confession and obedience in the form of works would be considered by the Hebrews to be an act in totality. "Both the act and the meaning of the act mattered -- the two formed for the first Christians an indivisible unity." [Flemington, New Testament Doctrine of Baptism, 111]

Now moving onto the thread's subject of Acts 2:37-38, JP Holding adds:
(BTW mods, please don't whack me for too much copy pasta. I'm trying to not do more than necessary )

Acts 2:37-8 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? 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.

A key here is the word "for" (eis) - a word that can mean for or because of. If eis is taken to mean "for" then it is taken to mean that baptism is essential to salvation; if it means "because of", then it is not. However, "into" is the closest approximation of eis in this verse, so that here Peter is telling the crowd to be "baptized into the remission of sins."

Read in light of the Semitic Totality Concept, it indicates that believers will practice this behavior to validate their commitment to Christ. Baptism is just one part of that behavior that is inextricably linked to repentance and salvation.

I see something similar when I come to Romans 10:9-10.

9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Now does this mean that one isn't saved before they openly confess Christ before others? I'm confident that this isn't so. Rather, if one possesses a saving faith in Christ this person will naturally want to confess Him before others. This good work WILL follow the spiritually regenerative and cleansing work of the new birth.

This is somewhat of a third view here besides the two options in the poll, but I began to see signs of it in John Reece's posts. Thanks very much, John, and I hope you get to feeling better soon.

I read the article years ago. Aside from the notion that salvation is a point-in-time event, which seems to be unsupported by the article, I agree with this.

JPH

Baptism, like any validating behavior, is "essential to salvation" only in the sense that if you don't want to go through with it, and there is no barrier to understanding, then it is clear that you do not possess salvation. Thought and action are expected, under the Semitic Totality paradigm, to correspond. The conversion and the baptism are regarded as one process, not because the latter is required for salvation, but because it is expected in light of salvation.
...

Acts 22:16

And now why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Some argue that this verse teaches that Paul's sins would be washed away following his baptism, and thus indicates the necessity of baptism. But, under the Semitic Totality concept, this is simply not the case.

Moreover, if one wants to read this verse as a chronology, rather than as a totality expression as we would read it, one wonders why calling on the name of Jesus is done last. It is more in line with the anthropological data to read Paul's quote of Ananias as a summary of a total commitment process which involved confession, obedience, regeneration and the "calling on the name of the Lord" as the "overarching term" in the passage. [For points in Acts, see commentaries by Polhill (461) and Kistemaker (790)]

© source where applicable

In fact, the only part of the article I take issue with is the last paragraph, where JPH makes the mistake of separating what he argues should be thought of in totality above.

[Cow Poke]

In fact, the only part of the article I take issue with is the last paragraph, where JPH makes the mistake of separating what he argues should be thought of in totality above.

If somebody comes to our Church (or not) and "gets saved", but doesn't look forward to Baptism... I have to wonder if they were actually saved.

[nrajeff]

If somebody comes to our Church (or not) and "gets saved", but doesn't look forward to Baptism... I have to wonder if they were actually saved.

Maybe you have an inaccurate understanding of what salvation really entails and when in a person's existence it actually occurs.

[Cow Poke]

Maybe you have an inaccurate understanding of what salvation really entails and when in a person's existence it actually occurs.

And maybe you do, as well. Or instead!

[nrajeff]

I plan to add a few more statements from ECFs and maybe another Bible commentary or two, as part of the evidence supporting the claim that "baptism for the purpose of/so that remission of sins will/may occur" is a better candidate for what the author Acts 2:38 intended the phrase to mean.

Then I plan to summarize all the evidence that has been cited as supporting that claim. That way, the totality of the evidence can be seen in one post, and its relatively greater substance noted.

Then I plan to again ask whether it has even made a dent in the certitude of any of the "yes" voters who initially dismissed the "no" position as being incorrect (or "idiotic and pedantic" as one person might characterize it).

[nrajeff]

By the way, it appears that CP never really answered the issues I raised in post 94. It is tempting to conclude that the reason for his failure was that he realized that his position was incorrect, but he was reluctant to come out and admit that he'd been proven wrong or at least was at a loss to explain how his position must still be correct in the face of those issues.

Instead of giving in to that temptation, I will just ask CP to actually (and civilly) engage the issues raised in post 94.

[Cow Poke]

By the way, it appears that CP never really answered the issues I raised in post 94. It is tempting to conclude that the reason for his failure was that he realized that his position was incorrect, but he was reluctant to come out and admit that he'd been proven wrong or at least was at a loss to explain how his position must still be correct in the face of those issues.

Instead of giving in to that temptation,

Yet you couldn't help rambling on with your rant.

I will just ask CP to actually (and civilly) engage the issues raised in post 94.

You DO realize you could have just "asked" without all that prior stuff, no? I'll give it a look, Jeff.

You really love me, don't you?

[Cow Poke]

....I will just ask CP to actually (and civilly) engage the issues raised in post 94.

I believe I "pre-answered" that post in Post #93, Jeff.

[Brown Cat]

I wonder if there's a quick way to navigate to posts 93 and 94. If not, I'll just slog my way there.