In the first place, the last nine verses of Mark 16 are questionable. One should never ever preach let alone set doctrines based upon questionable passages.
Here I quote:
"The first thing I have to say on Mark 16:16 is that it is very doubtful whether it is a part of the word of God. Certainly if you were in the Vatican library in Rome, and they were to hand you the old Vatican manuscript of the New Testament and you were to read Mark's Gospel you would not find in it the last twelve verses of chapter 16. And if you had before you the Sinaitic manuscript, discovered by Tischendorf, and which is supposed to be the oldest manuscript, you would find that this last paragraph of twelve verses is not in it. On that account I never preach from any part of those twelve verses. I never preach from a passage where it is really questionable as to whether or not it is a part of God's Word, and especially would I not attempt to build up a doctrine on it."
Source
I love it when this passage of scripture is used.
Lets look at it shall we?
"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)
In the Greek:
"Πέτρος δὲ πρὸς αὐτούς, Μετανοήσατε, [φησίν,] καὶ βαπτισθήτω ἕκαστος ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ
εἰς ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ὑμῶν, καὶ λήμψεσθε τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος:" -Acts 2:38 (GNT)
Now, I have taken the liberty to highlight a key word here.
The KJV renders "
εἰς" as "for" as seen in the KJV quoted above.
But its not that simple. "
εἰς" is one of those Greek words that carries several meanings.
Now, you want me to believe that "in order to" (
εἰς) have my sins removed, obtain remission, washed away, I must be baptized?
If so, to what end did Jesus die? His death, other than to carry my sins upon Himself, accomplished nothing.
Lets look at more scripture.
We are told by the writer of Hebrews that back in the days of sacrificing, all things were purged by the shedding of blood. But also that the blood of bulls and goats could not take away sins. (cf. Heb. 9:13;10:4) With our sins upon Him, and with His shedding of blood on our behalf, we now have remission of sins. (cf. Rom. 3:24-25) And our baptism, is a testimony to the world of our death, burial, and resurrection with Christ. (cf. Rom. 6:3-4)
Now, here's the deal. Lets compare scripture with scripture.
"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)
"Πέτρος δὲ πρὸς αὐτούς, Μετανοήσατε, [φησίν,] καὶ βαπτισθήτω ἕκαστος ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ
εἰς ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ὑμῶν, καὶ λήμψεσθε τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος:" -Acts 2:38 (GNT)
"The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented
at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here." -Mt. 12:41 (KJV)
"ἄνδρες Νινευῖται ἀναστήσονται ἐν τῇ κρίσει μετὰ τῆς γενεᾶς ταύτης καὶ κατακρινοῦσιν αὐτήν: ὅτι μετενόησαν
εἰς τὸ κήρυγμα Ἰωνᾶ, καὶ ἰδοὺ πλεῖον Ἰωνᾶ ὧδε." -Mt. 12:41 GNT)
Lo and behold, here is the same Greek word. "
εἰς"! Excaept, here in Matthew's Gospel, we have Jesus' own testimony that when Jonah preached, they repented!
Tell me, if "
εἰς" in Acts 2:38, is rendered "in order to", (remember, you have to stay consistant in that Acts 2:38 tells us that "in order to" have remission of sins, one must be baptized) why is it not in Mt. 12:41?
Did the people of Nineveh repent "
εἰς" (in order to (Acts 2:38)) get Jonah to preach? The scriptures here are quite specific. Not one single act of repentance happened prior to Jonah preaching. Nineveh, in fact, did not "repent" (in order to) get Jonah to preach.
We have a quandary. How can this be explained?
Here I cite:
"To illustrate the power of the general context in determining the meaning of a word in a specific case, we say, scripture must interpret scripture. The trend of the Bible must govern a literal, grammatical construction of a single passage. The passage must harmonize with clear, abundant passages elsewhere. If the book teaches in a thousand passages that only the blood of Christ, apprehended by faith, can take away sin, we are not warranted in attributing to an external rite the same power, merely on the ground or literal, grammatical construction in a few passages. These few detached passages concerning external rites must be interpreted in harmony with the spiritual trend of the entire revelation. That is an unquestioned principle of interpretation.
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."
Source
In Acts 2:38, we must conclude that "
εἰς" does not have/carry the meaning of "in order to". It would be better rendered as "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ
because of the remission of sins".
One other point, this is the Baptist area, and unless you are a Baptist, you must not teach against our beliefs.
A fact that Baptist do believe we are baptized because our sins are forgiven, and not to have our sins forgiven.
God Bless
Till all are one.