The way to understand Acts 2:38

JLR1300

Newbie
Dec 16, 2012
341
39
Oklahoma
✟8,189.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acts 2:38 The proper understanding of Baptism up to the day of Pentecost.

Acts 2:38 is a passage that very few people understand. It simply isn’t saying what people think it is. In order to understand it rightly, we have to understand what was going on in the first century.

We must understand that the Jewish nation of Israel by the first century actually had a very apostate and a very corrupt religion. It was led by legalistic Pharisees, theologically liberal Sadducees, a corrupt Priesthood, a worldly King and ultimately, the pagan government of Rome. Furthermore, the prophets predicted that God would send Israel a Messiah and Israel would reject Him. In light of all that, God decided to destroy the nation of Israel. He did that very thing in 70 A.D. About 35 years after Jesus ascended into heaven, Titus and the Roman army surrounded Jerusalem and slaughtered nearly everyone and destroyed the entire nation. In Luke 19: 41-44, Jesus warned them that this would happen. Since it was the time of the Passover, the Jews from all over Israel had gathered in Jerusalem and, thus, the Roman army was able to put almost the entire nation to death.

So God was planning to completely destroy the nation of Israel for rejecting their Messiah. Most everyone would die. The question was… how to avoid that fate? John the Baptist was the first one to deal with that question. He showed up preaching that the Messiah was coming and that everyone needed to accept Him when He came. John said that the ax of God was already poised to strike the root of Israel and bring it down and that anyone associated with it’s corrupt religion would be brought down with it. But there was a way to avoid the day of God’s wrath when He sent the Roman army to kill everyone.

Instead of siding with the corrupt religion that was going to kill the Messiah, the people must change their minds and reject the corrupt religious system in Israel. However, they needed to do more than just quietly repent of their association with the Pharisees’ Judaism… they needed to publicly announce that they were cleansing themselves of all of it by taking part in a ceremony where they were publicly washed with water. This was called baptism.

Baptism wasn’t really a new thing. Sometimes a Gentile would become a convert to Judaism. In that case the Pharisees would wash or baptize the Gentile before He could become a Jew. But John was doing something shocking. He was saying that the Jewish religious system had become so corrupt that Jews needed to change their mind about it, that is, repent of it, and ceremonially wash themselves of it. By doing this, the people would be clean and prepared to welcome their Messiah when He appeared. If they would do this, then the national sins of rejecting and killing the Messiah would not be counted against them …and when God sent the Romans to destroy the nation they would be saved. Later Jesus told his disciples that when they saw the Roman armies begin to encircle the city that they should immediately drop whatever they were doing and flee for the mountains. The Christians remembered this when it happened and were saved, but the rest of Israel were killed except for those that were captured or dispersed.

So the situation was that God was sending the Roman army to destroy the Israelites for rejecting their Messiah. Some of the Jews wanted to be saved from that awful fate. So John told them that instead of continuing to associate with the apostate religion of the Pharisees they should repent and be publicly washed, and if they did, any guilt by association would be removed and washed away. By changing their mind and rejecting apostate Judaism, and by baptism, the Jewish national sin for killing the Messiah would not be held against them and they would be physically saved and delivered from destruction.

Now in Acts chapter 2 we see from the context that Peter is dealing with this same issue. Peter spoke of the Day of the Lord in which the sun would be turned to darkness and the moon into blood and that those who called on the name of the Lord would be delivered. Then he said “therefore, let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus WHOM YOU CRUCIFIED, both Lord and Christ. (Messiah) “Then Peter said unto them, repent (change your minds about rejecting and killing Jesus) and let every one of you be baptized (publicly ceremonially washed to show outwardly that you renounce Judaism) for the remission of sins (since you now believe in Jesus your sins are forgiven and since you are ceremonially washed God remits the national sins of rejecting the Messiah which are upon you) and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Since this is not only a ceremonial washing to remove the national sins of rejecting the Messiah so that you have physical deliverance…. but is also changing your mind about Jesus and believing He is Lord and Christ,
you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.)

You see, the reason Acts 2:38 is often misunderstood is that it wasn’t just the question of individual salvation that was being dealt with. If that was all that was being dealt with then Peter would have just said “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved.” (Like He did in Acts 16:31 when dealing with a Gentile.) The historical issue of the national rejection of the Messiah and the public washing which John had instituted for the physical deliverance of individuals from the day of God’s wrath when Rome attacked Israel was also the issue.

The Jews could have simply believed in Christ and been forgiven of their individual sins but that in no way delivered them from the destruction of their nation which they were implicated in. God would still kill them if they did not publicly disassociate themselves from Israel. So not only did they need to change their minds and believe in Jesus (that would save their souls) but they also needed to publicly be washed and disassociate themselves from their Christ-killing religion so that their national sins would be removed and their lives would be saved when the Romans came to do God’s bidding.
 

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,183
2,677
61
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟100,334.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
"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." -Acts 2:38 (KJV)

"petroV de proV autouV, metanohsate, [fhsin,] kai baptisqhtw ekastoV umwn epi tw onomati ihsou cristou eiV afesin twn amartiwn umwn, kai lhmyesqe thn dwrean tou agiou pneumatoV:" -Acts 2:38 (GNT)

Another point, most overlook.

Are you baptized "in order to" have "remission of sins"; or are you baptized "because of" the "remission of sins"?

B. H. Carrol wrote: "The Theory of Baptismal Regeneration" saying:

(3) To illustrate the power of the local context in determining the meaning of the Greek preposition, eis (here we have the preposition with the accusative case after it), we now cite most pertinent New Testament examples: Matthew 12:41: "They repented eis the preaching of Jonah." Because eis ordinarily means in order to, must we so render it here? It is a fact, according to chapter 3 of Jonah, and did our Lord so mean it? If so, they failed in the object of their repentance, because Jonah never preached to them after they repented -- not a word. The only preaching he did preceded the repentance, and was the cause of the repentance. Therefore, Dr. Broadus teaches in his Commentary on Matthew that eis here must have its rare meaning - because of. They repented because of, eis, the preaching of Jonah. But they say we must make the ordinary meaning the meaning in every case.

Source

Occasionally, eis does mean "because of". And in the context of ACts 2:38, B.H. Carrol is correct.

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Upvote 0

JLR1300

Newbie
Dec 16, 2012
341
39
Oklahoma
✟8,189.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Yes you are correct. Also, if I say that men need to join the army and fight for the love of God and country... I am saying that they need to fight because of the love of God and country. If I tell my wife to give our son a present for his birthday I am telling her to give our son a present because of His birthday. If I say be baptized for the forgiveness of sins I am very likely saying be baptized because of the forgiveness of sins. Perform a washing ceremony because of the forgiveness and washing away of sins.

Another point is this... sometimes when I tell a person to do something to get a certain result I may mention two things but only one is really necessary to get the result and the other is incidental. For instance, If I say to my daughter... Put on your wedding dress and get married and then you can live with this man and have his children... getting married is the real necessity not wearing a wedding dress.... I only mentioned it because it always goes along with marriage. In the same way Peter said repent and be baptized not because baptism is necessary for justification but because baptism always went along with repentance.
 
Upvote 0

mikedsjr

Master Newbie
Aug 7, 2014
981
196
Fort Worth,Tx
✟17,192.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
There is no question that baptism wasn't new. Sacrifices weren't new when they were instituted in the law of Moses, nor were they new when Abraham did sacrifices. Sacrificing children wasn't new when God told Abraham to take his son Isaac to be sacrificed. The question is to you: Does that verse say to repent and be baptized for the remission of sin? The answer is yes. That is what Peter said to those listening. Verse 31 says, (esv) "So those who received his word were baptized...". *bam*
 
Upvote 0

JLR1300

Newbie
Dec 16, 2012
341
39
Oklahoma
✟8,189.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The problem is that the entire Bible teaches us that justification is by faith and not by any works. So you can't just take one or two verses and ignore the entire rest of the message of the Bible. Unless you believe that the Bible contradicts itself you need to understand the verse in Acts 2:38 in a different way than just the one way that contradicts everything else.

The church of Christ people and others like them learn about 2 or 3 verses and memorize them and then completely miss the entire message of the whole Bible. God allows people to misunderstand the Bible as a reward for being so lazy. If you would read Romans Paul says that Abraham is the example and prototype of how to be saved. He says that we must go by what Abraham found because Abraham is the Father of the faith. What did Abraham find? Paul asked this in Romans 4:1 "What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works He has something to boast about..."

So according to Paul when it comes to how to be justified, Abraham is who we look to example because He is the father of the faith. So then, How was he justified?. Paul tells us several things.

1. Paul teaches us in Galatians that Abraham lived 430 years before Moses gave us the law, including the ten commandments... and so Abraham was not justified by keeping any laws or moral rules.
2, Paul says in Romans that Abraham lived prior to the command to be circumcised therefore a religious ceremony like circumcision cannot be necessary for justification.
3. There were no churches or religious institutions in Abraham's day... so joining a certain church cannot be what is required for justification.
4. Abraham was justified by faith. Paul said we learn from this that when we believe on Christ we are justified even when we do absolutely no actions or works at all and while we are still ungodly and have done nothing good.
Romans 4:3 continues, "for what does the scripture say?, Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him as righteousness. Now to him who works the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. But to him who DOES NOT WORK but BELIEVES on Him who JUSTIFIES THE UNGODLY his faith is accounted for righteousness.

See? Ungodly people who don't do anything but believe on Christ are saved. Their faith is accounted as righteousness. That is how Abraham was saved. Later on works follow but first comes faith and justification.

So Paul says that when it comes to Justification Abraham is our example of how to do it. He is the pattern. He is the prototype. So what do we find when we look at him? He did nothing good. He was still ungodly. He joined no church. He performed no ceremony. He kept no commands. What did He do then? The answer: God told Him that from His descendants a Seed (Christ) would come who would bless the world (Spiritually...meaning with salvation) In other words God told Abraham that He was sending a savior.... and Abraham believed God. Abraham believed that he was blessed and rescued by the coming Christ. That's faith. That is how Abraham the prototype was saved and so that is how everyone else who ever lives will be saved. No exceptions. That is how the tax collector was justified while the Pharisee at the temple wasn't. That is how the thief on the cross was saved. No baptism, no good deeds etc. He just looked to Jesus and believed in Him for mercy and was told "today you shall be with Me in paradise."

The entire book of Romans teaches this. Galatians makes the same point. Phillippians says the same thing. The entire book of the Gospel of John gives us the same way to be saved.... Believe. We are told almost 200 times in the new testament that the way to be saved is to believe and we are told over and over that we are justified by faith not by any works whatsoever and not by any law keeping. So when we have one verse which seems on first glance to possibly include baptism we know that either the Bible contradicts itself or we shouldn't be simpletons with no sophistication with being able to look at context and language. You just can't build an entire theology on one or two verses. The entire New Testament teaches that the requirement is faith plus nothing else.

"For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves it is the gift of God, not of works lest anyone should boast." Ephesians 2:8-9

In the Paul's day people trusted in ceremonies for their salvation. They thought that the ceremony of circumcision would save them. In our time we still have people like that only they trust in the ceremony of baptism to save them. Go ahead then and trust in ceremonies if you want and make the same mistake they did. As for me I will put MY FAITH IN CHRIST ALONE.
 
Upvote 0

mikedsjr

Master Newbie
Aug 7, 2014
981
196
Fort Worth,Tx
✟17,192.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
JRL, your assuming I don't believe the Scriptures when it says we are saved by faith alone. I do believe that. But if we are to deal with the text at hand, they were baptized and about 3000 souls were saved.

I reject the notion baptism is symbolic. The text doesn't demonstrate this. What I'm hearing is you want to paint baptism by other groups as a ceremonial ritual of evil. Correct me if I'm wrong. You have no proof when your faith really became real. I certainly would point to your baptism. But if someone believe they are saved and reject the notion of taking baptism, I would point to Scripture that they are still dead in their sins. Their faith is no more real than a Mormon. What I'm saying is I believe based on the text that God is moving in the baptism for salvation.
 
Upvote 0

skypair

Active Member
Mar 7, 2013
265
11
Texas
✟468.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
JRL, your assuming I don't believe the Scriptures when it says we are saved by faith alone. I do believe that. But if we are to deal with the text at hand, they were baptized and about 3000 souls were saved.

I reject the notion baptism is symbolic. The text doesn't demonstrate this. What I'm hearing is you want to paint baptism by other groups as a ceremonial ritual of evil. Correct me if I'm wrong. You have no proof when your faith really became real. I certainly would point to your baptism. But if someone believe they are saved and reject the notion of taking baptism, I would point to Scripture that they are still dead in their sins. Their faith is no more real than a Mormon. What I'm saying is I believe based on the text that God is moving in the baptism for salvation.
Problematic in that is that the baptism in 2:38 is Spirit baptism (AKA "conversion" per Acts 3:19) whereas the baptism in 2:41 is in water. In 2:38, the Spirit regenerates washing away the sin in our soul or conscience and indwelling the repentant believer. In 2:41, by contrast, the person is separated (like the OP suggests) from the apostate, dead religion and to the new living church.

The thing that I suspect will confuse you till you die is that baptism doesn't always mean in water. In fact, spiritual baptism begins with the pouring out of the Spirit to "fill" the person hearing the gospel. That "filling" of the Spirit often but not always results in repentance and receiving the "indwelling" of the Spirit.

Then, once you are saved, you get baptized into the local church for sanctification and service.

skypair
 
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,183
2,677
61
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟100,334.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I reject the notion baptism is symbolic.

Then I take it, by your statement, you disagree with what Baptists have said about baptism since 1742.

See:

philadelphia confession-chapter 30

Principles of Faith of the Sandy Creek Association | The Reformed Reader

The New Hampshire Confession of Faith | The Reformed Reader

abstract of principles contents

1925 Baptist Faith and Message

Faith and Message | The Reformed Reader

While this is generally speaking, but it is essentially what Baptists, especially Southern Baptists, have said for 272 years.

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Upvote 0

mikedsjr

Master Newbie
Aug 7, 2014
981
196
Fort Worth,Tx
✟17,192.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Skypair, How do you make a disconnect of the word baptism when their is statement then response. Peter responds to their question, "what should we do?" with an statement to repent and be baptized in the name of Christ for the forgiveness of sins as not water baptism when "and you will" comes after the fact in relations to the Holy Spirit.

And let me add, this baptism is for children too(39), which I'm assuming requires a qualification on my oppositions part to what qualifies as children here.

They ask(37). Peter answers(38). They accepted(41).
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,137
20,170
US
✟1,440,860.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
In light of all that, God decided to destroy the nation of Israel. He did that very thing in 70 A.D. About 35 years after Jesus ascended into heaven, Titus and the Roman army surrounded Jerusalem and slaughtered nearly everyone and destroyed the entire nation. In Luke 19: 41-44, Jesus warned them that this would happen. Since it was the time of the Passover, the Jews from all over Israel had gathered in Jerusalem and, thus, the Roman army was able to put almost the entire nation to death.

So God was planning to completely destroy the nation of Israel for rejecting their Messiah. Most everyone would die.

I would take exception to this. It could not have been God's intention to completely destroy the entire nation of Israel. That wasn't even the intention of the Romans (or else they'd have crucified the hundreds of thousands of Jews of the Diaspora across the empire and even in Rome).

There is no scriptural intention that God intended to completely destroy the nation of Israel any more than He did with the Captivity.

If it was the intention of God to "completely destroy the nation of Israel" then, why do Baptists support the nation of Israel today?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

mikedsjr

Master Newbie
Aug 7, 2014
981
196
Fort Worth,Tx
✟17,192.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Deacondean, I still go to a Baptist church. I understand the Baptist believe baptism is a symbol. But its been only recently my position has changed with listening to Lutherans and looking at Scripture. I find it more of an inconsistency within the Baptist circle than anything else. Traditions are hard to brake from and people's pride is more affected than anything. I'm certain not going around church condemning baptism as symbolic. I'd rather allow conversations in church to flow from questions when discussing Scripture and not divisiveness. It's just easier here to be open and still be respectful still here
 
Upvote 0

JLR1300

Newbie
Dec 16, 2012
341
39
Oklahoma
✟8,189.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
RDKIRK said.....

"I would take exception to this. It could not have been God's intention to completely destroy the entire nation of Israel. That wasn't even the intention of the Romans (or else they'd have crucified the hundreds of thousands of Jews of the Diaspora across the empire and even in Rome).
There is no scriptural intention that God intended to completely destroy the nation of Israel any more than He did with the Captivity.
If it was the intention of God to "completely destroy the nation of Israel" then, why do Baptists support the nation of Israel today?" __________________


I just meant that God did away with the nation as a nation for 2000 years. I didn't mean that God couldn't eventually restore the nation once again. I also didn't mean to suggest that there wouldn't be any that were scattered or taken captive. It is, however, a historical fact that the nation of Israel was destroyed if you mean what is normally meant by such a statement. When people say that a nation is destroyed they don't mean that there aren't any survivors at all... they just mean that the government is dissolved and the people are either killed or scattered or both. Plus, what happened in 70 a.d. was much more serious than the Babylonian Captivity. The Babylonian Captivity lasted for 70 years. The destruction of Israel in 70 a.d. lasted for almost 2000 years. That's some serious destruction! The fact that God performed a miracle and reconstituted the nation after two millenniums doesn't show that the nation wasn't destroyed it shows how significant God's miracle was in restoring the nation. Also in the 70 a.d. destruction the temple was destroyed, the Priesthood was dissolved, the sacrificial system was ended, Israel lost it's King, etc. etc. Of course, we all know that Christ is the true King and he is the true Great High Priest and He is the true sacrifice for sin.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,137
20,170
US
✟1,440,860.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
RDKIRK said.....

"I would take exception to this. It could not have been God's intention to completely destroy the entire nation of Israel. That wasn't even the intention of the Romans (or else they'd have crucified the hundreds of thousands of Jews of the Diaspora across the empire and even in Rome).
There is no scriptural intention that God intended to completely destroy the nation of Israel any more than He did with the Captivity.
If it was the intention of God to "completely destroy the nation of Israel" then, why do Baptists support the nation of Israel today?" __________________


I just meant that God did away with the nation as a nation for 2000 years. I didn't mean that God couldn't eventually restore the nation once again. I also didn't mean to suggest that there wouldn't be any that were scattered or taken captive. It is, however, a historical fact that the nation of Israel was destroyed if you mean what is normally meant by such a statement. When people say that a nation is destroyed they don't mean that there aren't any survivors at all... they just mean that the government is dissolved and the people are either killed or scattered or both. Plus, what happened in 70 a.d. was much more serious than the Babylonian Captivity. The Babylonian Captivity lasted for 70 years. The destruction of Israel in 70 a.d. lasted for almost 2000 years. That's some serious destruction! The fact that God performed a miracle and reconstituted the nation after two millenniums doesn't show that the nation wasn't destroyed it shows how significant God's miracle was in restoring the nation. Also in the 70 a.d. destruction the temple was destroyed, the Priesthood was dissolved, the sacrificial system was ended, Israel lost it's King, etc. etc. Of course, we all know that Christ is the true King and he is the true Great High Priest and He is the true sacrifice for sin.

Scripturally, the lack of territory does not equal the destruction of the nation. See 1 Peter. Peter describes the Body of Christ as being in dispora--the same word used to describe the Hellenist Jews living across the Roman Empire outside Judea in John 7:35.

Yet, Peter says that even in diaspora, the Church is a nation. God does not limit "nation" to people who happen to be in a specific geographic area. God always saw Jews in diaspora as a "nation" just as He sees us Christians who are also in diaspora around the world as a nation as 1 Peter describes.

It's critical for us in the Body of Christ to understand our common nationhood even though we are in diaspora until Christ's return.

Sorry for "teaching" in the wrong forum area, but I hope you understand how this touches upon a critical point for the Body of Christ.
 
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,183
2,677
61
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟100,334.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
But its been only recently my position has changed with listening to Lutherans and looking at Scripture.

So...from the above statement, would it be safe to say you reject Baptists beliefs on baptism, and you agree with what Lutherans say, "and looking from scripture".

Are you aware that according to Lutheran beliefs, there is no salvation without baptism?

Article IX: Of Baptism.

1] Of Baptism they teach that it is necessary 2] to salvation,

The Augsburg Confession, Article IX, Of Baptism

Source

Strange that you claim to be Baptist, attend a Baptist church, yet reject Baptist beliefs and hold to Lutheran beliefs.

Oh well...

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,183
2,677
61
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟100,334.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
RDKIRK said.....

"I would take exception to this. It could not have been God's intention to completely destroy the entire nation of Israel. That wasn't even the intention of the Romans (or else they'd have crucified the hundreds of thousands of Jews of the Diaspora across the empire and even in Rome).
There is no scriptural intention that God intended to completely destroy the nation of Israel any more than He did with the Captivity.
If it was the intention of God to "completely destroy the nation of Israel" then, why do Baptists support the nation of Israel today?" __________________


I just meant that God did away with the nation as a nation for 2000 years. I didn't mean that God couldn't eventually restore the nation once again. I also didn't mean to suggest that there wouldn't be any that were scattered or taken captive. It is, however, a historical fact that the nation of Israel was destroyed if you mean what is normally meant by such a statement. When people say that a nation is destroyed they don't mean that there aren't any survivors at all... they just mean that the government is dissolved and the people are either killed or scattered or both. Plus, what happened in 70 a.d. was much more serious than the Babylonian Captivity. The Babylonian Captivity lasted for 70 years. The destruction of Israel in 70 a.d. lasted for almost 2000 years. That's some serious destruction! The fact that God performed a miracle and reconstituted the nation after two millenniums doesn't show that the nation wasn't destroyed it shows how significant God's miracle was in restoring the nation. Also in the 70 a.d. destruction the temple was destroyed, the Priesthood was dissolved, the sacrificial system was ended, Israel lost it's King, etc. etc. Of course, we all know that Christ is the true King and he is the true Great High Priest and He is the true sacrifice for sin.

Point of history.

Israel, as a sovereign nation, never existed until 1948.

When Joshua led the Hebrews into Cannan, he was instructed to drive, destroy all people in the land.

Exceptions were made however.

Israel stood as a separated land. The Northern Kingdom called Manasseh.

And the Southern Kingdom of Judah.

And for years, the entire land was called its primary inhabitants, Palestine.

Palestinians live for years before Joshua showed up.

And because the falsely made a deal with Joshua, they still are a thorn in Israel's side today.

But to the point, God has never destroyed Israel. Look at the history revealed in Elijah.

Weeping in a cave, what did God tell him?

I have thousands who have not bowed down to Baal.

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

mikedsjr

Master Newbie
Aug 7, 2014
981
196
Fort Worth,Tx
✟17,192.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
So...from the above statement, would it be safe to say you reject Baptists beliefs on baptism, and you agree with what Lutherans say, "and looking from scripture".

Are you aware that according to Lutheran beliefs, there is no salvation without baptism?

That isn't quite true, but it is not really the issue here. Lutheranism has shaped my stance on baptism. By shaping it I see where they are coming from by doing the thing majority Baptist (specifically Southern here) state we are to do by viewing Scripture as "....the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried. All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation. "

That's what I'm doing by viewing Baptism. Salvation is certainly by faith alone. I certainly could condemn most Baptist churches for teaching to say a prayer for salvation. Nothing is Scripture says "repent and pray and you are saved", but I'm quite confident many would not condemn Baptist churches for doing this.

I don't condemn Baptist baptisms. I love them. They are real people saved in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. However, I would question a baptism is but a dunk if it isn't done in the name of the Triune God. I would question their faith is real. Not from some mistake a baptizer does by forgetting. I'm referring to someone who refuses to do baptisms in the name of the Triune God. Their is a false theology going on.

The text provided in Acts 2 supports my stance that Baptism is more than a symbol. This means this is more than just dunking into water. There is something real about the baptism. For it to be something real, it requires God to be involved. But as I said, I'm not necessarily stating God doesn't save without a baptism. God does in the same miraculous way he does in baptism. But either way, its a miracle of God's work.

Strange that you claim to be Baptist, attend a Baptist church, yet reject Baptist beliefs and hold to Lutheran beliefs.
Not strange to me because my stance is about valuing Sola Scriptura. I find it more strange than so many Baptist can value Bibles like the Message and authors like Rick Warren and Joel Osteen.
 
Upvote 0

greatdivide46

Junior Member
Nov 7, 2011
1,390
138
Alabama
✟9,561.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
"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." -Acts 2:38 (KJV)

"petroV de proV autouV, metanohsate, [fhsin,] kai baptisqhtw ekastoV umwn epi tw onomati ihsou cristou eiV afesin twn amartiwn umwn, kai lhmyesqe thn dwrean tou agiou pneumatoV:" -Acts 2:38 (GNT)

Another point, most overlook.

Are you baptized "in order to" have "remission of sins"; or are you baptized "because of" the "remission of sins"?

B. H. Carrol wrote: "The Theory of Baptismal Regeneration" saying:



Source

Occasionally, eis does mean "because of". And in the context of ACts 2:38, B.H. Carrol is correct.

God Bless

Till all are one.

I checked my NASB and eis is never translated "because of" in that version. There is a Greek word gar that actually means "because of." I'm sure if the original writers meant "because of" they would have used that word.
 
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,541
707
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟125,343.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
I checked my NASB and eis is never translated "because of" in that version. There is a Greek word gar that actually means "because of." I'm sure if the original writers meant "because of" they would have used that word.

One of the great Greek grammarians of the 20th century - and a Baptist - Dr A T Robertson, provided this Greek exegesis of Acts 2:38 (Word Pictures in the New Testament, vol 3, pp. 35-36):

Acts 2:38
Repent ye (metanohsate). First aorist (ingressive) active imperative. Change your mind and your life. Turn right about and do it now. You crucified this Jesus. Now crown him in your hearts as Lord and Christ. This first. And be baptized every one of you (kai baptisqhtw ekasto mwn). Rather, "And let each one of you be baptized." Change of number from plural to singular and of person from second to third. This change marks a break in the thought here that the English translation does not preserve. The first thing to do is make a radical and complete change of heart and life. Then let each one be baptized after this change has taken place, and the act of baptism be performed "in the name of Jesus Christ" (en twi onomati Ihsou Cristou). In accordance with the command of Jesus in Matthew 28:19 (ei to onoma). No distinction is to be insisted on between ei to onoma and en twi onomati with baptizw since ei and en are really the same word in origin. In Acts 10:48 en twi onomati Ihsou Cristou occurs, but ei to onoma in Acts 8:16 ; Acts 19:5 . The use of onoma means in the name or with the authority of one as ei onoma prophtou ( Matthew 10:41 ) as a prophet, in the name of a prophet. In the Acts the full name of the Trinity does not occur in baptism as in Matthew 28:19 , but this does not show that it was not used. The name of Jesus Christ is the distinctive one in Christian baptism and really involves the Father and the Spirit. See on "Mt 28:19" for discussion of this point. "Luke does not give the form of words used in baptism by the Apostles, but merely states the fact that they baptized those who acknowledged Jesus as Messiah or as Lord" (Page). Unto the remission of your sins (ei apesin twn amartiwn mwn). This phrase is the subject of endless controversy as men look at it from the standpoint of sacramental or of evangelical theology. In themselves the words can express aim or purpose for that use of ei does exist as in 1 Corinthians 2:7 ei doxan hmwn (for our glory). But then another usage exists which is just as good Greek as the use of ei for aim or purpose. It is seen in Matthew 10:41 in three examples ei onoma prophtou, dikaiou, maqhtou where it cannot be purpose or aim, but rather the basis or ground, on the basis of the name of prophet, righteous man, disciple, because one is, etc. It is seen again in Matthew 12:41 about the preaching of Jonah (ei to khrugma Iwna). They repented because of (or at) the preaching of Jonah. The illustrations of both usages are numerous in the N.T. and the Koin generally (Robertson, Grammar, p. 592). One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not. My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission. So I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received. The gift of the Holy Ghost (thn dwrean tou agiou pneumato). The gift consists ( Acts 8:17 ) in the Holy Spirit (genitive of identification).

Oz

P.S. You will note that the eta which is transliterated as 'e' with an ellipse (to distinguish it from the epsilon) is dropped in the transliterations because this html will not accept the ellipse.
 
Upvote 0

greatdivide46

Junior Member
Nov 7, 2011
1,390
138
Alabama
✟9,561.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
One of the great Greek grammarians of the 20th century - and a Baptist - Dr A T Robertson, provided this Greek exegesis of Acts 2:38 (Word Pictures in the New Testament, vol 3, pp. 35-36):

Acts 2:38
Repent ye (metanohsate). First aorist (ingressive) active imperative. Change your mind and your life. Turn right about and do it now. You crucified this Jesus. Now crown him in your hearts as Lord and Christ. This first. And be baptized every one of you (kai baptisqhtw ekasto mwn). Rather, "And let each one of you be baptized." Change of number from plural to singular and of person from second to third. This change marks a break in the thought here that the English translation does not preserve. The first thing to do is make a radical and complete change of heart and life. Then let each one be baptized after this change has taken place, and the act of baptism be performed "in the name of Jesus Christ" (en twi onomati Ihsou Cristou). In accordance with the command of Jesus in Matthew 28:19 (ei to onoma). No distinction is to be insisted on between ei to onoma and en twi onomati with baptizw since ei and en are really the same word in origin. In Acts 10:48 en twi onomati Ihsou Cristou occurs, but ei to onoma in Acts 8:16 ; Acts 19:5 . The use of onoma means in the name or with the authority of one as ei onoma prophtou ( Matthew 10:41 ) as a prophet, in the name of a prophet. In the Acts the full name of the Trinity does not occur in baptism as in Matthew 28:19 , but this does not show that it was not used. The name of Jesus Christ is the distinctive one in Christian baptism and really involves the Father and the Spirit. See on "Mt 28:19" for discussion of this point. "Luke does not give the form of words used in baptism by the Apostles, but merely states the fact that they baptized those who acknowledged Jesus as Messiah or as Lord" (Page). Unto the remission of your sins (ei apesin twn amartiwn mwn). This phrase is the subject of endless controversy as men look at it from the standpoint of sacramental or of evangelical theology. In themselves the words can express aim or purpose for that use of ei does exist as in 1 Corinthians 2:7 ei doxan hmwn (for our glory). But then another usage exists which is just as good Greek as the use of ei for aim or purpose. It is seen in Matthew 10:41 in three examples ei onoma prophtou, dikaiou, maqhtou where it cannot be purpose or aim, but rather the basis or ground, on the basis of the name of prophet, righteous man, disciple, because one is, etc. It is seen again in Matthew 12:41 about the preaching of Jonah (ei to khrugma Iwna). They repented because of (or at) the preaching of Jonah. The illustrations of both usages are numerous in the N.T. and the Koin generally (Robertson, Grammar, p. 592). One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not. My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission. So I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received. The gift of the Holy Ghost (thn dwrean tou agiou pneumato). The gift consists ( Acts 8:17 ) in the Holy Spirit (genitive of identification).

Oz

P.S. You will note that the eta which is transliterated as 'e' with an ellipse (to distinguish it from the epsilon) is dropped in the transliterations because this html will not accept the ellipse.

I disagree with Robertson's analysis. Particularly the phrase where he says, "The illustrations of both usages are numerous in the N.T. and the Koin generally (Robertson, Grammar, p. 592)." I don't about the Koin generally, but this is not true of the New Testament. As I said, in the New American Standard Version there are no illustrations where eis is translated "because of." So, the illustrations of both usages are decidedly not numerous in the N.T.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,541
707
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟125,343.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
I disagree with Robertson's analysis. Particularly the phrase where he says, "The illustrations of both usages are numerous in the N.T. and the Koin generally (Robertson, Grammar, p. 592)." I don't about the Koin generally, but this is not true of the New Testament. As I said, in the New American Standard Version there are no illustrations where eis is translated "because of." So, the illustrations of both usages are decidedly not numerous in the N.T.

Have you examined every example of eis in the Greek NT and the NASB translation? How do you know the NASB translation is the accurate one?

Why don't you go to A T Robertson's monumental grammar to which he referred on p. 592, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press, 1934)? In pp 591-599 Robertson has an extensive examination of the uses of eis. I have a hard copy of the book. Gordon College has made this Grammar available online for free HERE as a pdf document. The explanation of eis is in CHAPTER XIII, section VII (f) from p. 591.

Robertson is of the view that with Acts 2:38, 'only the context and the tenor of N. T. teaching can determine whether "into," "unto" or merely "in" or "on" ("upon") is the right translation, a task for the interpreter, not for the grammarian' (Robertson 1934:592).

Do you have the grammatical expertise of Robertson? I don't, although I'm relatively fluent in NT Greek usage.

These are only some thoughts for us to ponder.

Oz
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0