The way to understand Acts 2:38

JLR1300

Newbie
Dec 16, 2012
341
39
Oklahoma
✟8,189.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
"Point of history.
Israel, as a sovereign nation, never existed until 1948."

Well actually, the northern 10 tribes were referred to not only as Manasseh but were usually called Israel and the Southern part was made up of Judah and Benjamin and that area was called Judah. Technically, Israel (the northern 10 tribes) was destroyed in 722 b.c. by the Assyrians. I am just using the word destroyed because that is the word that all of the History books use.

Obviously, most everyone knows that from a spiritual standpoint the Church is often thought of as the new Israel and this is stressed either a lot or a little depending on whether you are a dispensationalist or not. Paul also calls Christians the true Jews. But I think everyone knows that I wasn't speaking in a spiritual sense. Most people know what you mean by a nation based on the context.

Also it is true that Judah was very often referred to as "Israel" even though technically it was Judah. For instance John 3 comes to mind where Jesus is speaking to Nicodemus and says..."are you the teacher of Israel and you do not know these things?" The New Testament is full of references like that but I don't see why I have to quote them all. Thanks....
 
Upvote 0

greatdivide46

Junior Member
Nov 7, 2011
1,390
138
Alabama
✟9,561.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Have you examined every example of eis in the Greek NT and the NASB translation?
I wouldn't say I've examined every example, but I have looked at 152 examples (I don't know if that's every or not). And not once is eis translated "because of" in these 152 examples.

How do you know the NASB translation is the accurate one?
I believe the translation experts who say that the NASB is the closest and best word for word translation in the English language.

Do you have the grammatical expertise of Robertson? I don't, although I'm relatively fluent in NT Greek usage.
No, I'm sure I don't have the grammatical expertise of Robertson, nor am I fluent (relatively or otherwise) in NT Greek. I did take first year Greek twice in college, though.
 
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 wouldn't say I've examined every example, but I have looked at 152 examples (I don't know if that's every or not). And not once is eis translated "because of" in these 152 examples.

I believe the translation experts who say that the NASB is the closest and best word for word translation in the English language.

No, I'm sure I don't have the grammatical expertise of Robertson, nor am I fluent (relatively or otherwise) in NT Greek. I did take first year Greek twice in college, though.

Obtaining a 'best word for word translation' should not be our goal. Take a look at this Interlinear of NT Greek and English to demonstrate that all translations have to use some kind of 'addition' to the text to make sense. See HERE.

Our goal should be to obtain the meaning of a text. There are any number of Bible translations that can assist us to do that: NASB, ESV, RSV, NRSV, NIV, NLT, HCSB, ISV, NET, etc.

I notice that you didn't quote and provide sources to demonstrate that the 'NASB is the closest and best word for word translation in the English language'. I will not be arguing with you about the best literal translation as I'm not convinced 'literal translation' is helpful in describing translations.

Neither am I endorsing 'because of' as the best translation of eis in Acts 2:38, however, A T Robertson has better NT Greek qualifications than you or I in arriving at a conclusion about Acts 2:38. I have a BA in biblical literature & NT Greek and am currently near the end of my PhD dissertation in NT. I am needing to be able to handle Greek grammar at an advanced level for that.

Oz
 
Upvote 0

JLR1300

Newbie
Dec 16, 2012
341
39
Oklahoma
✟8,189.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No matter what the exact Greek word is in this case doesn't exactly matter anyway...here is why...

If a sentence says " Do x for z" you know for sure that z depends on doing x.
If however a sentence says "Do x and y for z, y might be essential or it might not.

For instance, if I say "Repeat your vows and you will be married" We know for sure that repeating your vows is essential for marriage ... If however I say "Repeat your vows and exchange rings and you will be married"... It might be that both are essential for marriage or it might not. In this case it is not. You don't really have to exchange rings to be married. The construction of the sentence does not prove either case.

Repeating your vows is the essential thing for marriage.... Exchanging rings is just a ceremony which isn't really the necessary part. Then why did I say to do both? Because the emphasis is on the exchanging of vows but the exchanging of rings is a ceremony which normally accompanies it.

So if I say "repent for the forgiveness of sins" since there are only two things in this sentence (repentance and forgiveness) we know that the forgiveness of sins has to relate back to repent. So repentance is essential to forgiveness. However if I say, "repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins" we do not know for sure if only repentance is essential for forgiveness or both repentance and baptism are essential. However from reading other scriptures that teach Justification by faith and not by works we know that Baptism is not essential... just like we know that exchanging rings is not essential. ...

Thus, "Repeat your vows and exchange rings and you will be married" means that Repeat your vows is essential and exchanging rings is just a normal ceremony that accompanies marriage. So repent and be baptised for the forgiveness of sins obviously means that repentance is essential and baptism is just a normal ceremony which accompanies an unbeliever repenting and becoming a Christian.
 
Last edited:
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 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.

The New Analytical Greek Lexicon, Wesley J. Pershbacher, Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, Mass., Copyright 1990, p. 121 (eis) disagrees with your analysis.

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
That isn't quite true,

Yes...it is.

From The Large Catechism, it says:

In the second place, since we know now what Baptism is, and how it is to be regarded, we must also learn why and for what purpose it is instituted; that is, what it profits, gives, and works. And this also we cannot discern better than from the words of Christ above quoted: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. 24] Therefore state it most simply thus, that the power, work, profit, fruit, and end of Baptism is this, namely, to save.

Source

To go even further, it states in the Book of Concord:

Defense

Article IX: Of Baptism.

51] The Ninth Article has been approved, in which we confess that Baptism is necessary to salvation, and that children are to be baptized, and that the baptism of children is not in vain, but is necessary and effectual to salvation. 52] And since the Gospel is taught among us purely and diligently, by God's favor we receive also from it this fruit, that in our Churches no Anabaptists have arisen [have not gained ground in our Churches], because the people have been fortified by God's Word against the wicked and seditious faction of these robbers. And as we condemn quite a number of other errors of the Anabaptists, we condemn this also, that they dispute that the baptism of little children is profitable. For it is very certain that the promise of salvation pertains also to little children [that the divine promises of grace and of the Holy Ghost belong not alone to the old, but also to children]. It does not, however, pertain to those who are outside of Christ's Church, where there is neither Word nor Sacraments, because the kingdom of Christ exists only with the Word and Sacraments. Therefore it is necessary to baptize little children, that the promise of salvation may be applied to them, according to Christ's command, Matt. 28:19: Baptize all nations. Just as here salvation is offered to all, so Baptism is offered to all, to men, women, children, infants. It clearly follows, therefore, that infants are to be baptized, because with Baptism salvation [the universal grace and treasure of the Gospel] is offered. 53] Secondly, it is manifest that God approves of the baptism of little children. Therefore the Anabaptists, who condemn the baptism of little children, believe wickedly. That God, however, approves of the baptism of little children is shown by this, namely, that God gives the Holy Ghost to those thus baptized [to many who have been baptized in childhood]. For if this baptism would be in vain, the Holy Ghost would be given to none, none would be saved, and finally there would be no Church. [For there have been many holy men in the Church who have not been baptized otherwise.] This reason, even taken alone, can sufficiently establish good and godly minds against the godless and fanatical opinions of the Anabaptists.

Source

And in the Large Catechism, it even further states:

so also I can boast that Baptism is no human trifle, but instituted by God Himself, moreover, that it is most solemnly and strictly commanded that we must be baptized or we cannot be saved,...23] In the second place, since we know now what Baptism is, and how it is to be regarded, we must also learn why and for what purpose it is instituted; that is, what it profits, gives, and works. And this also we cannot discern better than from the words of Christ above quoted: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. 24] Therefore state it most simply thus, that the power, work, profit, fruit, and end of Baptism is this, namely, to save. For no one is baptized in order that he may become a prince, but, as the words declare, that he be saved. 25] But to be saved, we know, is nothing else than to be delivered from sin, death, and the devil, and to enter into the kingdom of Christ, and to live with Him forever...27] But where the name of God is, there must be also life and salvation, that it may indeed be called a divine, blessed, fruitful, and gracious water; for by the Word such power is imparted to Baptism that it is a laver of regeneration, as St. Paul also calls it, Titus 3:5.

The Large Catechism - Book of Concord

it is not really the issue here.

Actually, it is.

The first sentence of the OP's post dealt with baptism

The proper understanding of Baptism up to the day of Pentecost

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. "

I beg your pardon.

Where do Baptists teach that baptism is necessary for salvation?

That's what I'm doing by viewing Baptism. Salvation is certainly by faith alone.

That is not what the Large Catechism or the Book of Concord state.

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.

Where does it command us to repent to a man or preacher?

There is Romans 10:9 and Acts 2:21.

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 hate to say it, but that's funny.

I was saved in 1974 in an Independent Baptist church. I have been a Southern Baptist for nearly 30 years. And not once in 30 years have I witnessed a baptism where the believer was not baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

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.

Again, I repeat my previous answer.

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.

You really should read Donald Grey Barnhouse's commentary on Romans. Especially Romans 6:3-4.

Baptism is symbolic in that when Christ died, I died with Him. When we go under the water, it's symbolic of us being buried with Him. When we come out of the water, it's symbolic of us being raised with Him.

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.

Why do people lump us together with the likes of them?

I still find it strange that you would reject Baptist beliefs on baptism, but accept Lutheran beliefs on that.

Strange indeed.

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Last edited:
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
John Broadus said in his commentary on Matthew 12:41:

Matthew 12:41. By a natural association of ideas, our Lord passes to say that the men of 'this generation' are acting much more wickedly than did the Ninevites. It was a sublime spectacle when the whole population of that vast heathen city, the proud king, the nobles and all, down to the very humblest, repented at the preaching of Jonah. (Matthew 3:5-10) This repentance, both in the grief, the reformation, and the prayer for forgiveness, must have been genuine, for otherwise God would not have regarded it, nor would Jesus have appealed to it here. Subsequent generations relapsed into idolatry, but so it often was with Israel. Shall rise, more literally, stand up, and Rev. Ver. so renders, in order to leave room for the idea of standing up to bear witness, as in Matthew 13:57. But this is the common term for the resurrection, more common than the literal 'be raised' of Matthew 12:42, and does not probably mean anything else in the present case. In (the) judgment see on "Matthew 11:22". With this generation, i.e., along with, in company with. And shall condemn it, show its guilt and desert of condemnation, by the contrast between its conduct and their own. (Compare Matthew 11:22-24) Repented, the verb corresponding to metanoia (see on "Matthew 3:2"), denoting not merely regret, but change of mind. Tyndale, Cram, Gen.,"amended." At the preaching, or proclamation, the word being derived from the verb, explained on Matthew 4:17. The preposition rendered 'at' is, usually rendered 'into' or 'unto,' and often denoting design or aim. It cannot possibly have that sense here, for certainly the Ninevites did not repent in order that Jonah might preach. It clearly introduces the occasion or ground of the repenting(1) (Winer, p. 397, 495); and so it may possibly have the same force in Matthew 8:11 and Acts 2:38. And behold, calling attention to something important. A greater—or more—than Jonah is here. The word is neuter, not 'a greater (man),' but '(something) more.' (Compare on Matthew 11:9, Matthew 12:6) If more than Jonah was here, then the men of this generation were under greater obligation to repent than the Ninevites, and all the more guilty for not repenting. Some records of buried Nineveh have been recently exhumed, and the world eagerly reads their strangely recovered history; let us not forget that the Ninevites of Jonah's day will rise up in the judgment and condemn all those of every age who hear the preaching of the gospel and will not repent. Weiss : "If John already was more than a prophet, (Matthew 11:9) why should not the mightier one to whom he pointed (Matthew 3:11) be beyond comparison more than Jonah?" Wherever the gospel of Jesus is really preached, the same thing holds true; for the gospel, when spoken by the humblest follower of Christ, has higher claims to be believed and heeded than had the solemn warning of Jonah. This reply of our Lord somewhat resembles that made at Nazareth. (Luke 4:23 ff.) In both cases miracles were demanded, and in both the answer rebuked the arrogance of their claim by showing that God had sometimes blessed Gentiles rather than Jews.

Source

There is another website, www.greattreasures.org, that shows eis as en. And they agree, it means "because of". (Strongs Number 1722)

If you take Acts 2:38 at any other fashion than what is explained above, then the shed blood of our Lord is valueless. It cannot wash away your sins. Only baptism can.

And that...is not a Baptist belief.

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

JLR1300

Newbie
Dec 16, 2012
341
39
Oklahoma
✟8,189.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
In Revelation 1:5 says, "... to Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood."

If we are actually washed from our sins in the blood of Jesus then we can only symbolically be washed from our sins in water. Or if we are actually washed from our sins in water then we are only symbolically washed from our sins in the blood of Jesus. It doesn't take a theologian to see which one of those statements is blasphemy.
 
Upvote 0

greatdivide46

Junior Member
Nov 7, 2011
1,390
138
Alabama
✟9,561.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Obtaining a 'best word for word translation' should not be our goal. Take a look at this Interlinear of NT Greek and English to demonstrate that all translations have to use some kind of 'addition' to the text to make sense. See HERE.
Thanks. I never denied that.

Our goal should be to obtain the meaning of a text. There are any number of Bible translations that can assist us to do that: NASB, ESV, RSV, NRSV, NIV, NLT, HCSB, ISV, NET, etc.
Absolutely. No disagreement here.

I notice that you didn't quote and provide sources to demonstrate that the 'NASB is the closest and best word for word translation in the English language'. I will not be arguing with you about the best literal translation as I'm not convinced 'literal translation' is helpful in describing translations.
I didn't provide a source because I'm and eclectic reader and I don't always keep track of where I read everything.
 
Upvote 0

greatdivide46

Junior Member
Nov 7, 2011
1,390
138
Alabama
✟9,561.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Neither am I endorsing 'because of' as the best translation of eis in Acts 2:38, however, A T Robertson has better NT Greek qualifications than you or I in arriving at a conclusion about Acts 2:38. I have a BA in biblical literature & NT Greek and am currently near the end of my PhD dissertation in NT. I am needing to be able to handle Greek grammar at an advanced level for that.
I appreciate Robertson's scholarship and yours as well. However, all the scholarship in the world doesn't mean that someone is always going to be right. I disagreed with Robertson earlier and I still do on that one point.
 
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

greatdivide46

Junior Member
Nov 7, 2011
1,390
138
Alabama
✟9,561.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The New Analytical Greek Lexicon, Wesley J. Pershbacher, Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, Mass., Copyright 1990, p. 121 (eis) disagrees with your analysis.

God Bless

Till all are one.

I'm not surprised. I'm sure that's not the only one that disagrees with my analysis.
 
Upvote 0

greatdivide46

Junior Member
Nov 7, 2011
1,390
138
Alabama
✟9,561.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
If you take Acts 2:38 at any other fashion than what is explained above, then the shed blood of our Lord is valueless. It cannot wash away your sins. Only baptism can.
Only the shed blood of our Lord can wash away sins. That fact that that happens when we are baptized lends no power or efficacy to the act of baptism itself. It is still the blood of Jesus that washes away sin not baptism.
 
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
Only the shed blood of our Lord can wash away sins. That fact that that happens when we are baptized lends no power or efficacy to the act of baptism itself. It is still the blood of Jesus that washes away sin not baptism.

Of THAT, you'll get no argument from me.

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
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 didn't provide a source because I'm and eclectic reader and I don't always keep track of where I read everything.

greatdivide,

I encourage you that when you make a statement such as, 'NASB is the closest and best word for word translation in the English language', on a public forum that you do a Google search to find that source and give us the link. That's courteous and demonstrates a desire to communicate accurately what you are saying.

You and others may be interested in Daniel Wallace's, '15 myths about Bible translation'.

In Christ,
Oz
 
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
For some who disagree, I submit:

cf. the common expression eis marturion autois, Mk. 1:44 and par. 6:11; Lk. 9:5; cf. Mt. 24:14; Mk. 13:9 also eiV mnhmosunon authV, Mk. 14:9 and par. John baptizes, and Jesus sheds His blood for the forgiveness of sins (Mk. 1:4; Lk. 3:3; Mt. 26:28; cf Ac. 2:38)

The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Gerhard Kittle, Editor, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Translator, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, Grand Rapids, Mi., Copyright 1964, Vol. II, eis, p. 429

Either Jesus' shed blood cleanses us from all unrighteousness, or it is baptism.

If it is baptism, Christ died in vain.

Are you baptized because your sins were forgiven, or are you baptized in order to, for, the forgiveness of sins?

Baptists believe in the first, Lutherans believe in the second.

Fact is fact, the Missouri Synod of Lutherans churches in the US, say they believe what the Augsburg Confessions says, (I've already shown that) they teach Luther's Larger Catechism, (I've already shown that) and the Book of Concord goes deeper into what and why they believe. (I've already shown that too)

I am sorry.

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

greatdivide46

Junior Member
Nov 7, 2011
1,390
138
Alabama
✟9,561.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
greatdivide,

I encourage you that when you make a statement such as, 'NASB is the closest and best word for word translation in the English language', on a public forum that you do a Google search to find that source and give us the link. That's courteous and demonstrates a desire to communicate accurately what you are saying.
You're right, of course. So here is the closest I found:

"The original NASB has earned the reputation of being the most accurate English Bible translation."

https://www.biblegateway.com/versions/New-American-Standard-Bible-NASB/
 
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
You're right, of course. So here is the closest I found:

"The original NASB has earned the reputation of being the most accurate English Bible translation."

https://www.biblegateway.com/versions/New-American-Standard-Bible-NASB/

greatdivide,

I hope you understand that this is a statement from the NASB's publishers, the Lockman Foundation, where they stated:
The original NASB has earned the reputation of being the most accurate English Bible translation. The NASB update carries on the NASB tradition of being a true Bible translation, revealing what the original manuscripts actually say--not merely what the translator believes they mean. The Lockman Foundation
So it is not a neutral, more objective assessment by a scholar or group of scholars not associated with the translation.

Why would the NASB be better than the ESV whose translators provided this 'Version Information'?

The English Standard Version (ESV) stands in the classic mainstream of English Bible translations over the past half-millennium. The fountainhead of that stream was William Tyndale's New Testament of 1526; marking its course were the King James Version of 1611 (KJV), the English Revised Version of 1885 (RV), the American Standard Version of 1901 (ASV), and the Revised Standard Version of 1952 and 1971 (RSV). In that stream, faithfulness to the text and vigorous pursuit of accuracy were combined with simplicity, beauty, and dignity of expression. Our goal has been to carry forward this legacy for a new century.

To this end each word and phrase in the ESV has been carefully weighed against the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, to ensure the fullest accuracy and clarity and to avoid under-translating or overlooking any nuance of the original text.
Oz
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

mikedsjr

Master Newbie
Aug 7, 2014
981
196
Fort Worth,Tx
✟17,192.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Acts 2:37-41, again, clearly says 1) repent 2) be baptized 3)for the forgiveness of sins

I'm not sure how much clearer the Scriptures require to be.

1 John 1:7 absolutely says Jesus shed his blood to cleanse us from sin.

Both are what Scripture says. They are both true.
 
Last edited:
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
Acts 2:37-41, again, clearly says 1) repent 2) be baptized 3)for the forgiveness of sins

I'm not sure how much clearer the Scriptures require to be.

1 John 1:7 absolutely says Jesus shed his blood to cleanse us from sin.

But given you find baptism is a symbol, I guess Christ died and shed blood symbolically too.

Mike,

Would you please be so kind as to back quote so that we know to whom you are addressing your comment?

Thanks,
Oz
 
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

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
Acts 2:37-41, again, clearly says 1) repent 2) be baptized 3)for the forgiveness of sins

I'm not sure how much clearer the Scriptures require to be.

1 John 1:7 absolutely says Jesus shed his blood to cleanse us from sin.

Both are what Scripture says. They are both true.

Another source:

Repent and be baptised "βαπτισθήτω" every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins "ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ὑμῶν" and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Acts 2:38) Here we have Peter instructing the soon-to-be proselytes to be baptised "in" (ἐπὶ) the name of Jesus Christ. The prepositioin "ἐπὶ" has debatable translation with the majority of translations using "in" while Youngs Literal Translation uses "on" and the Complete Jewish Bible branches out to "on the authority of." Typically Luke expresses the phrase "in the name of Jesus" with the prepositioin "ev". However, Luke interchanges "ἐπὶ" "ἐv" "εἰς" in his phraseology without much differentiation so that we may assume his use of these prepositions is insignificant.

Acts 2:38 mimics the words of Jesus in the commission in Lk. 24:47 which states "And that repentance and remission of sins " (μετάνοιαν εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν) should be preached in his name ( ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ ) among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. The Greek shows just how close these statements are to each other...

in continuation of Lukes narrative, the name of Jesus and the forgiveness of sins was first preached in Jerusalem as the Lukan commission foretold.

Baptized into God: Theologizing Baptism in the Name of Jesus Christ and the Oneness of God, A. A. Walker, Xlibris, Copyright 2014, Chapter One, Acts of Baptism in the Acts of the Apostles, Acts 2:38, p. 20-21

Just because the passage uses "εἰς" before "remission" does not mean it necessarily means that. "εv" "because of" is just as valid translation as "εἰς". And in light of all the other passages where the forgiveness of sins is linked to the shedding of blood, baptism cannot in no way be the inference here.

Sorry dude.

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Upvote 0