"EIS" OR "DIA" OR "HOTI" ??

[mailmandan]

Excellent point Angela. I never thought of that. That really blows Robertson's argument out of the water doesn't it.

Greek scholar A. T. Robertson comments on Acts 2:38 - he shows how the grammar of this verse can be used to support more than one interpretation of this text. He then reaches this conclusion: "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 illustrations of both usages are numerous in the N.T. and the Koin, generally (Robertson, Grammar, page 592).

In Acts 2:38, "for the remission of sins" does not refer back to both clauses, "you all repent" and "each one of you be baptized," but refers only to the first. Peter is saying "repent unto the remission of your sins," the same as in Acts 3:19. The clause "each one of you be baptized" is parenthetical. This is exactly what Acts 3:19 teaches except that Peter omits the parenthesis. Also compare the fact that these Gentiles in Acts 10:45 received the gift of the Holy Spirit (compare with Acts 2:38 - the gift of the Holy Spirit) and this was BEFORE water baptism (Acts 10:47).

*In Acts 10:43 we read ..whoever believes in Him receives remission of sins. Again, these Gentiles received the gift of the Holy Spirit - Acts 10:45 - (compare with Acts 2:38 - the gift of the Holy Spirit) when they believed on the Lord Jesus Christ - Acts 11:17 - (compare with Acts 16:31 - Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved) BEFORE water baptism - Acts 10:47 - this is referred to as repentance unto life - Acts 11:18.

My conclusion is that faith in Jesus Christ "implied in genuine repentance" (rather than water baptism) brings the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31; 26:18). *Perfect harmony and Scripture must harmonize with Scripture* We see this throughout the book of Acts:

Acts 4:4 - However, many of those who heard the word believed; and the number of the men came to be about five thousand.

Acts 5:14 - And believers were increasingly added to the Lord, multitudes of both men and women.

Acts 10:43 - To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him receives remission of sins.

Acts 10:45 - And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also.

Acts 10:47 - "Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?"

Acts 11:17 - If therefore God gave them the same gift as He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?"

Acts 11:18 - When they heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God, saying, "Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance unto life."

Acts 13:39 - and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses.

Acts 15:7 - And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them: "Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.

Acts 15:8 - So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, 9 and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

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

Acts 13:48 - Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.

Acts 26:18 - to open their eyes, in order to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in Me.

 

[oldhermit]

Greek scholar A. T. Robertson comments on Acts 2:38 - he shows how the grammar of this verse can be used to support more than one interpretation of this text. He then reaches this conclusion: "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 illustrations of both usages are numerous in the N.T. and the Koin, generally (Robertson, Grammar, page 592).

In Acts 2:38, "for the remission of sins" does not refer back to both clauses, "you all repent" and "each one of you be baptized," but refers only to the first. Peter is saying "repent unto the remission of your sins," the same as in Acts 3:19. The clause "each one of you be baptized" is parenthetical. This is exactly what Acts 3:19 teaches except that Peter omits the parenthesis. Also compare the fact that these Gentiles in Acts 10:45 received the gift of the Holy Spirit (compare with Acts 2:38 - the gift of the Holy Spirit) and this was BEFORE water baptism (Acts 10:47).

*In Acts 10:43 we read ..whoever believes in Him receives remission of sins. Again, these Gentiles received the gift of the Holy Spirit - Acts 10:45 - (compare with Acts 2:38 - the gift of the Holy Spirit) when they believed on the Lord Jesus Christ - Acts 11:17 - (compare with Acts 16:31 - Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved) BEFORE water baptism - Acts 10:47 - this is referred to as repentance unto life - Acts 11:18.

My conclusion is that faith in Jesus Christ "implied in genuine repentance" (rather than water baptism) brings the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31; 26:18). *Perfect harmony and Scripture must harmonize with Scripture* We see this throughout the book of Acts:

Acts 4:4 - However, many of those who heard the word believed; and the number of the men came to be about five thousand.

Acts 5:14 - And believers were increasingly added to the Lord, multitudes of both men and women.

Acts 10:43 - To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him receives remission of sins.

Acts 10:45 - And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also.

Acts 10:47 - "Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?"

Acts 11:17 - If therefore God gave them the same gift as He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?"

Acts 11:18 - When they heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God, saying, "Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance unto life."

Acts 13:39 - and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses.

Acts 15:7 - And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them: "Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.

Acts 15:8 - So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, 9 and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

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

Acts 13:48 - Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.

Acts 26:18 - to open their eyes, in order to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in Me.

A.T. Robertson's argument on this verse simply will not hold water. An otherwise brilliant and qualified Greek scholar, his treatment of this verse stands as an embarrassment to his standing in this field. His opening statement reflects his motives for his treatment of the verse. "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."In other words, his treatment of this verse is driven not by any rules of grammar (which he also later admits) but by his views on soteriology. His attempt to reconstruct the grammar of this verse is completely absurd because it violates standing rules of Greek grammar.

 

[Grace777x70]

A.T. Robertson's argument on this verse simply will not hold water. An otherwise brilliant and qualified Greek scholar, his treatment of this verse stands as an embarrassment to his standing in this field. His opening statement reflects his motives for his treatment of the verse. "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."In other words, his treatment of this verse is driven not by any rules of grammar (which he also later admits) but by his views on soteriology. His attempt to reconstruct the grammar of this verse is completely absurd because it violates standing rules of Greek grammar.

If this was true - what would be the practical application of this?

Would it mean:

1) that those believers who were never water baptized before they died would not receive the remission of sins?

2) Does it mean that only the remission of sins is done at the water baptism itself and not when we believed as in the case of Cornelius and others in his house who received the Holy Spirit before they were water baptized.

 

[oldhermit]

If this was true - what would be the practical application of this?

Would it mean:

1) that those believers who were never water baptized before they died would not receive the remission of sins?

2) Does it mean that only the remission of sins is done at the water baptism itself and not when we believed as in the case of Cornelius and others in his house who received the Holy Spirit before they were water baptized.

If baptism is the point prescribed by God as the point at which he will forgive sin then why would one assume that sin is forgiven as some point prior the that event? For example, was Paul's sins forgiven while he was on the road to Damascus or three days later when he was baptized by Ananias?

 

[mailmandan]

A.T. Robertson's argument on this verse simply will not hold water. An otherwise brilliant and qualified Greek scholar, his treatment of this verse stands as an embarrassment to his standing in this field. His opening statement reflects his motives for his treatment of the verse. "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."In other words, his treatment of this verse is driven not by any rules of grammar (which he also later admits) but by his views on soteriology. His attempt to reconstruct the grammar of this verse is completely absurd because it violates standing rules of Greek grammar.

Elsewhere, AT Robertson said - 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” (εν τωι ονοματι Ιησου Χριστου — en tōi onomati Iēsou Christou). 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.”

Greek scholar E Calvin Beisner said something similar - In short, the most precise English translation of the relevant clauses, arranging them to reflect the switches in person and number of the verbs, would be, “You (plural) repent for the forgiveness of your (plural) sins, and let each one (singular) of you be baptized (singular)….” Or, to adopt our Southern dialect again, “Y’all repent for the forgiveness of y’all’s sins, and let each one of you be baptized….”

When I showed this translation to the late Julius Mantey, one of the foremost Greek grammarians of the twentieth century and co-author of A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (originally published in 1927), he approved and even signed his name next to it in the margin of my Greek New Testament. *These arguments, lexical and grammatical, stand independently. Even if one rejects both lexical meanings of for, he still must face the grammatical argument, and even if he rejects the grammatical conclusion, he still must face the lexical argument.

Does Acts 2:38 prove baptismal remission? No, it doesn’t even support it as part of a cumulative case. — E. Calvin Beisner

Greek scholar Daniel Wallace explains in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: It is possible that to a first-century Jewish audience (as well as to Peter), the idea of baptism might incorporate both the spiritual reality and the physical symbol (although only the reality remits sins). In other words, when one spoke of baptism, he usually meant both ideas—the reality and the ritual. Peter is shown to make the strong connection between these two in chapters 10 and 11. In 11:15-16 he recounts the conversion of Cornelius and friends, pointing out that at the point of their conversion they were baptized by the Holy Spirit. After he had seen this, he declared, “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit…” (10:47). The point seems to be that if they have had the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit via spiritual baptism, there ought to be a public testimony/acknowledgment via water baptism as well. This may not only explain Acts 2:38 (that Peter spoke of both reality and picture, though only the reality removes sins), but also why the NT speaks of only baptized believers (as far as we can tell): Water baptism is not a cause of salvation, but a picture; and as such it serves both as a public acknowledgment (by those present) and a public confession (by the convert) that one has been Spirit baptized.

*So neither AT Robertson, E Calvin Beisner or Daniel Wallace agree that water baptism is what obtains the remission of sins.

We can argue "he said/you said/they said" all day long, but what ULTIMATELY settles the issue for me is that *SCRIPTURE MUST HARMONIZE WITH SCRIPTURE* as I shared with you in post #61.

 

[oldhermit]

Elsewhere, AT Robertson said - 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” (εν τωι ονοματι Ιησου Χριστου — en tōi onomati Iēsou Christou). 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.”

Greek scholar E Calvin Beisner said something similar - In short, the most precise English translation of the relevant clauses, arranging them to reflect the switches in person and number of the verbs, would be, “You (plural) repent for the forgiveness of your (plural) sins, and let each one (singular) of you be baptized (singular)….” Or, to adopt our Southern dialect again, “Y’all repent for the forgiveness of y’all’s sins, and let each one of you be baptized….”

When I showed this translation to the late Julius Mantey, one of the foremost Greek grammarians of the twentieth century and co-author of A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (originally published in 1927), he approved and even signed his name next to it in the margin of my Greek New Testament. *These arguments, lexical and grammatical, stand independently. Even if one rejects both lexical meanings of for, he still must face the grammatical argument, and even if he rejects the grammatical conclusion, he still must face the lexical argument.

Does Acts 2:38 prove baptismal remission? No, it doesn’t even support it as part of a cumulative case. — E. Calvin Beisner

Greek scholar Daniel Wallace explains in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: It is possible that to a first-century Jewish audience (as well as to Peter), the idea of baptism might incorporate both the spiritual reality and the physical symbol (although only the reality remits sins). In other words, when one spoke of baptism, he usually meant both ideas—the reality and the ritual. Peter is shown to make the strong connection between these two in chapters 10 and 11. In 11:15-16 he recounts the conversion of Cornelius and friends, pointing out that at the point of their conversion they were baptized by the Holy Spirit. After he had seen this, he declared, “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit…” (10:47). The point seems to be that if they have had the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit via spiritual baptism, there ought to be a public testimony/acknowledgment via water baptism as well. This may not only explain Acts 2:38 (that Peter spoke of both reality and picture, though only the reality removes sins), but also why the NT speaks of only baptized believers (as far as we can tell): Water baptism is not a cause of salvation, but a picture; and as such it serves both as a public acknowledgment (by those present) and a public confession (by the convert) that one has been Spirit baptized.

*So neither AT Robertson, E Calvin Beisner or Daniel Wallace agree that water baptism is what obtains the remission of sins.

We can argue "he said/you said/they said" all day long, but what ULTIMATELY settles the issue for me is that *SCRIPTURE MUST HARMONIZE WITH SCRIPTURE* as I shared with you in post #61.

Do you not realize how many rules of grammar they had to manipulate and ignore in order to force this conclusion onto this text? These men are simply wrong in their treatment of the grammar and it does not take a scholar to see it. Even your appeal to Wallace is misleading. Wallace vehemently disagreed with Robertson's treatment of this verse. Even Wallace who does not believe that baptism is for the remission of sin agreed that εἰς cannot be rendered as 'because of'. As far as Beisner's argument of person and number, this is completely manufactured and ignores the construction of the clauses and the application of person and number in these clauses.

 

[oldhermit]

The point is this. Robertson KNOWS what this verse says. He simply does not like what it says or implies. Since the grammar does not agree with his soteriology, he attempts to reconstruct the grammar in such a way that it will. It is interesting to me that Beisner and Mantey, with all of their skills in the language, had never been able to arrive at these conclusions until Robertson offered them this alternative reading. If this reading is correct, then why have others of Robertson's class never independently arrived at this same conclusion? If this reading is correct, then why has no scholar or group of scholars ever been willing to put their reputations on the line and issue a translation that renders Acts 2:38 in this way?

 

[mailmandan]

Do you not realize how many rules of grammar they had to manipulate and ignore in order to force this conclusion onto this text? These men are simply wrong in their treatment of the grammar and it does not take a scholar to see it. Even your appeal to Wallace is misleading. Wallace vehemently disagreed with Robertson's treatment of this verse. Even Wallace who does not believe that baptism is for the remission of sin agreed that εἰς cannot be rendered as 'because of'. As far as Beisner's argument of person and number, this is completely manufactured and ignores the construction of the clauses and the application of person and number in these clauses.

Again, it's you said vs. they said and ultimately for me, *SCRIPTURE MUST HARMONIZE WITH SCRIPTURE* and your interpretation of Acts 2:38 does not harmonize with the rest of Scripture so who do you think I'm going to believe? Salvation by water baptism negates a multitude of passages of Scripture that clearly teach we are saved through believing in Him/faith "apart from additions or modifications" (Luke 8:12; John 1:12; 3:15,16,18,36; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:15,26; Acts 4:4; 5:14; 10:43; 11:17; 13:39; 16:31; Romans 1:16; 3:22-28; 4:5,9,11; 5:1; Galatians 2:16; 3:6,7; 26; Ephesians 1:13; 2:8; Philippians 3:9; 2 Thessalonians 1:10; 1 Timothy 1:16; 2 Timothy 3:15; Hebrews 10:39; 1 Peter 1:5,9; 1 John 5:13 etc..

 

[mailmandan]

Then explain the conversion of Paul to me.

In regards to Acts 22:16? The Greek aorist participle, epikalesamenos, translated "calling on His name" refers either to action that is simultaneous with or before that of the main verb, "be baptized." Here Paul’s calling on Christ’s name for salvation preceded his water baptism. The participle may be translated "having called on His name" which makes more sense, as it would clearly indicate the order of the events.

Kenneth Wuest picks up on this Greek nuance and translates the verse as follows: "And now, why are you delaying? Having arisen, be baptized and wash away your sins, having previously called upon His Name" (Acts 22:16, Wuest's Expanded NT).

As Greek scholar AT Robertson points out - baptism is the picture of death, burial and resurrection, so here baptism pictures the change that had already taken place when Paul surrendered to Jesus on the way. Baptism here pictures the washing away of sins by the blood of Christ.

Our sins are already washed away by the blood of Christ and we are saved when we repent/believe/call upon the name of the Lord (Acts 3:19; Acts 10:43; Romans 3:24-26; 10:13) BEFORE water baptism. Paul tells that he did not receive or hear the Gospel from Ananias, but rather he heard it directly from Christ. Galatians 1:11-12 says, "For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ."

It also should be noted that Paul at the time when Ananias prayed for him to receive his sight, he was filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 9:17)--this was before he was baptized (Acts 9:18). Verse 17 connects his being filled with the Spirit with the receiving of his sight. We know that he received his sight prior to his water baptism.

It is also interesting that when Paul recounted this event again later in Acts (Acts 26:12-18), he did not mention Ananias or what Ananias said to him at all. Verse 18 again would confirm the idea that Paul received Christ as Savior prior to receiving water baptism since here Christ is telling Paul he will be a messenger for Him concerning forgiveness of sins for Gentiles as they have faith in Him. It would seem unlikely that Christ would commission Paul if Paul had not yet believed in Him and was not saved.

*No single text of Scripture is to be interpreted out of context, and this includes the entirety of Scripture. No scripture is to be interpretated in isololation from the totality of Scripture. Practically speaking, a singular and obscure verse is to be subservient to multiple and clear verses, and not vice versa.

 

[oldhermit]

Again, it's you said vs. they said and ultimately for me, *SCRIPTURE MUST HARMONIZE WITH SCRIPTURE* and your interpretation of Acts 2:38 does not harmonize with the rest of Scripture so who do you think I'm going to believe? Salvation by water baptism negates a multitude of passages of Scripture that clearly teach we are saved through believing in Him/faith "apart from additions or modifications" (Luke 8:12; John 1:12; 3:15,16,18,36; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:15,26; Acts 4:4; 5:14; 10:43; 11:17; 13:39; 16:31; Romans 1:16; 3:22-28; 4:5,9,11; 5:1; Galatians 2:16; 3:6,7; 26; Ephesians 1:13; 2:8; Philippians 3:9; 2 Thessalonians 1:10; 1 Timothy 1:16; 2 Timothy 3:15; Hebrews 10:39; 1 Peter 1:5,9; 1 John 5:13 etc..

You assume that these other verses do not agree with the construction of Acts 2 (which by the way is not my interpretation, it is simply what the text says). You assume they cannot synthesize because of what you think it meas to believe. Belief is more than a simple acknowledgement of a set of facts. The Bible NEVER defines belief/faith in this way. Both belief and faith are from the same word and mean precisely the same thing. Faith is from the word πίστις which means 'to be persuaded.' The word is translated in the NT as both faith and belief and reflects two interlocking dynamics. The first is the mental acceptance of a set of facts. The second is the action that responds to that acceptance. Belief is the fundamental structure for salvation but belief is never presented in scripture as simply an intellectual exorcise. Biblical faith is more than just a simple acknowledgement of a set of revealed truths. Faith is always presented as a behavior structure that actively responds to the word of God. James makes the point that faith apart from obedience to the will of God is NOT faith. Faith is legitimized only when it is linked to action. We see this in a number of examples given by the Hebrew writer. In Hebrews 11 belief/faith is inseparably linked to active response that legitimizes what the mind has accepted as true. Without obedience to the will of God, there is no acknowledgement of faith. By faith those are offered here as examples of faith did what God commanded.

 

[oldhermit]

In regards to Acts 22:16? The Greek aorist participle, epikalesamenos, translated "calling on His name" refers either to action that is simultaneous with or before that of the main verb, "be baptized." Here Paul’s calling on Christ’s name for salvation preceded his water baptism. The participle may be translated "having called on His name" which makes more sense, as it would clearly indicate the order of the events.

Kenneth Wuest picks up on this Greek nuance and translates the verse as follows: "And now, why are you delaying? Having arisen, be baptized and wash away your sins, having previously called upon His Name" (Acts 22:16, Wuest's Expanded NT).

As Greek scholar AT Robertson points out - baptism is the picture of death, burial and resurrection, so here baptism pictures the change that had already taken place when Paul surrendered to Jesus on the way. Baptism here pictures the washing away of sins by the blood of Christ.

Our sins are already washed away by the blood of Christ and we are saved when we repent/believe/call upon the name of the Lord (Acts 3:19; Acts 10:43; Romans 3:24-26; 10:13) BEFORE water baptism. Paul tells that he did not receive or hear the Gospel from Ananias, but rather he heard it directly from Christ. Galatians 1:11-12 says, "For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ."

It also should be noted that Paul at the time when Ananias prayed for him to receive his sight, he was filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 9:17)--this was before he was baptized (Acts 9:18). Verse 17 connects his being filled with the Spirit with the receiving of his sight. We know that he received his sight prior to his water baptism.

It is also interesting that when Paul recounted this event again later in Acts (Acts 26:12-18), he did not mention Ananias or what Ananias said to him at all. Verse 18 again would confirm the idea that Paul received Christ as Savior prior to receiving water baptism since here Christ is telling Paul he will be a messenger for Him concerning forgiveness of sins for Gentiles as they have faith in Him. It would seem unlikely that Christ would commission Paul if Paul had not yet believed in Him and was not saved.

*No single text of Scripture is to be interpreted out of context, and this includes the entirety of Scripture. No scripture is to be interpretated in isololation from the totality of Scripture. Practically speaking, a singular and obscure verse is to be subservient to multiple and clear verses, and not vice versa.

I am sorry it is taking so long to respond. I am having a lot of trouble with my service. Please bear with me.

 

[Grace777x70]

If baptism is the point prescribed by God as the point at which he will forgive sin then why would one assume that sin is forgiven as some point prior the that event? For example, was Paul's sins forgiven while he was on the road to Damascus or three days later when he was baptized by Ananias?

So, in this theory. If someone receives Christ just before they die and they don't get water baptized - then there is no remission of sins. All people who didn't have a chance to be water baptized still have not received the remission of sins. This theory violates the whole gospel message.

They still have sins even though Jesus is the Lamb of God who took away the sins of the world. This violates the whole "why" of the gospel in the first place and it also violates the very nature and character of God.

Obviously we are with our natural understanding missing what is happening. I'll go look at Paul to see what happened there on the road to Damscus.


Here is Peter saying the true gospel message.

Acts 10:43 (NASB)
[SUP]43 [/SUP] "Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins."

They were water baptized afterwards as a symbol of what they believed. But they had received the forgiveness of sins before they were water baptized.

Paul preaching the same thing in Acts 13.

 

[Grace777x70]

Acts 22:16 (NASB)
[SUP]16 [/SUP] 'Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.'

Water baptism does not produce forgiveness of sins. This is referring to the cleansing of our consciences that comes through obeying the Lord’s commands. That is what Peter spoke of in 1 Peter 3:21, “The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”

Physical water baptism no more makes a person receive the forgiveness of sins then Daffy Duck and Donald Duck are the 2 witnesses in the book of Revelation.

The baptism into Christ is what makes a person whole and water baptism is an outward sign of remembrance or symbol of what happened to us in Christ. We were baptized into His death and we rose again with Him when we believed.

 

[mailmandan]

You assume that these other verses do not agree with the construction of Acts 2 (which by the way is not my interpretation, it is simply what the text says). You assume they cannot synthesize because of what you think it meas to believe. Belief is more than a simple acknowledgement of a set of facts. The Bible NEVER defines belief/faith in this way. Both belief and faith are from the same word and mean precisely the same thing. Faith is from the word πίστις which means 'to be persuaded.' The word is translated in the NT as both faith and belief and reflects two interlocking dynamics. The first is the mental acceptance of a set of facts.

The word translated faith is found in the Greek lexicon of the Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance and is defined as follows: #4102; pistis; persuasion, i.e. credence; moral conviction (of religious truth, or the truthfulness of God or a religious teacher), *especially reliance upon Christ for salvation*; abstractly, constancy in such profession; by extension, the system of religious (Gospel) truth itself:--assurance, belief, believe, faith, fidelity.

The word translated believe is from the greek word pisteuō which means "to have faith (in, upon, or with respect to, a person or thing), that is, credit; by implication to entrust (especially one’s spiritual well being to Christ)." The word "believe" can describe mere mental assent, as in James 2:19 or also include trust and reliance in Christ for salvation, as in Acts 16:31.

In James 2:19, nobody is questioning the fact that the demons believe "mental assent" that "there is one God" but they do not believe/entrust their spiritual well being to Christ; have faith/reliance upon Christ for salvation. Their trust and reliance is in Satan, as demonstrated by their rebellion in heaven and continuous evil works. I believe "mental assent" that George Washington existed and I also believe in the historical facts about George Washington, but I am not trusting in George Washington to save my soul. See the difference?

The Greek words for "pistis" and "pisteuo" are two forms of the same word. "Pistis" is the noun form, "pisteuo" is the verb form. Nothing in the root meaning of either word carries any concept of works. If you believe in Christ/place faith in Christ for salvation, (Acts 10:43; Ephesians 2:8) then you are trusting in Him alone to save you. This belief will result in actions appropriate to the belief (fruit of faith) - but the actions are NOT INHERENT in the belief/faith.

The second is the action that responds to that acceptance.

The action that responds to the acceptance is WORKS and we are not saved by works.

Belief is the fundamental structure for salvation but belief is never presented in scripture as simply an intellectual exorcise. Biblical faith is more than just a simple acknowledgement of a set of revealed truths.

Saving belief/faith is more than just an "intellectual acknowledgment" to the existence and historical facts about Christ. Saving belief/faith completely trusts in Christ's finished work of redemption as the ALL-sufficient means of our salvation. No supplements needed.

Faith is always presented as a behavior structure that actively responds to the word of God.

Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen (Hebrews 11:1). Again, actions which follow are WORKS.

James makes the point that faith apart from obedience to the will of God is NOT faith. Faith is legitimized only when it is linked to action.

In James 2:14, we read of one who says/claims he has faith but has no works (to back up his claim). The absence of evidence (of works) can be construed of evidence of absence (of faith). Faith is the root of salvation and works are the fruit. No fruit at all demonstrates there is no root. We show our faith by our works, yet we are saved through faith at it's origin.

We see this in a number of examples given by the Hebrew writer. In Hebrews 11 belief/faith is inseparably linked to active response that legitimizes what the mind has accepted as true. Without obedience to the will of God, there is no acknowledgement of faith. By faith those are offered here as examples of faith did what God commanded.

In Hebrews 11, notice in all of these occurences that it was "by" or "out of" faith, they accomplished these things and NOT faith is "in essence" all of these things. Their faith was genuine and it was proved by their actions (works). So yes, all of these things in Hebrews 11 were done "by" or "out of" faith, yet none of these things are the essence of faith, but are the evidence (fruit) of faith. That is absolutely critical to understand! We are saved by faith at it's origin, not at some time later based on our works. I've heard people get really mixed up before and basically teach that faith "is" baptism, faith "is" multiple acts of obedience, faith "is" works, making no distinction between faith and works that are produced out of faith. While growing up in the Roman Catholic church, I was basically taught the error of wrapping BOTH faith AND works up in a package, and simply stamping faith on the package, then making no clear distinction between faith and works. The end result was salvation through faith (their version of faith) and works.

 

[oldhermit]

The word translated faith is found in the Greek lexicon of the Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance and is defined as follows: #4102; pistis; persuasion, i.e. credence; moral conviction (of religious truth, or the truthfulness of God or a religious teacher), *especially reliance upon Christ for salvation*; abstractly, constancy in such profession; by extension, the system of religious (Gospel) truth itself:--assurance, belief, believe, faith, fidelity.

The word translated believe is from the greek word pisteuō which means "to have faith (in, upon, or with respect to, a person or thing), that is, credit; by implication to entrust (especially one’s spiritual well being to Christ)." The word "believe" can describe mere mental assent, as in James 2:19 or also include trust and reliance in Christ for salvation, as in Acts 16:31.

In James 2:19, nobody is questioning the fact that the demons believe "mental assent" that "there is one God" but they do not believe/entrust their spiritual well being to Christ; have faith/reliance upon Christ for salvation. Their trust and reliance is in Satan, as demonstrated by their rebellion in heaven and continuous evil works. I believe "mental assent" that George Washington existed and I also believe in the historical facts about George Washington, but I am not trusting in George Washington to save my soul. See the difference?

The Greek words for "pistis" and "pisteuo" are two forms of the same word. "Pistis" is the noun form, "pisteuo" is the verb form. Nothing in the root meaning of either word carries any concept of works. If you believe in Christ/place faith in Christ for salvation, (Acts 10:43; Ephesians 2:8) then you are trusting in Him alone to save you. This belief will result in actions appropriate to the belief (fruit of faith) - but the actions are NOT INHERENT in the belief/faith.

The action that responds to the acceptance is WORKS and we are not saved by works.

Saving belief/faith is more than just an "intellectual acknowledgment" to the existence and historical facts about Christ. Saving belief/faith completely trusts in Christ's finished work of redemption as the ALL-sufficient means of our salvation. No supplements needed.

Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen (Hebrews 11:1). Again, actions which follow are WORKS.

In James 2:14, we read of one who says/claims he has faith but has no works (to back up his claim). The absence of evidence (of works) can be construed of evidence of absence (of faith). Faith is the root of salvation and works are the fruit. No fruit at all demonstrates there is no root. We show our faith by our works, yet we are saved through faith at it's origin.

In Hebrews 11, notice in all of these occurences that it was "by" or "out of" faith, they accomplished these things and NOT faith is "in essence" all of these things. Their faith was genuine and it was proved by their actions (works). So yes, all of these things in Hebrews 11 were done "by" or "out of" faith, yet none of these things are the essence of faith, but are the evidence (fruit) of faith. That is absolutely critical to understand! We are saved by faith at it's origin, not at some time later based on our works. I've heard people get really mixed up before and basically teach that faith "is" baptism, faith "is" multiple acts of obedience, faith "is" works, making no distinction between faith and works that are produced out of faith. While growing up in the Roman Catholic church, I was basically taught the error of wrapping BOTH faith AND works up in a package, and simply stamping faith on the package, then making no clear distinction between faith and works. The end result was salvation through faith (their version of faith) and works.

I am having a lot of technical problems right now and am trying my bet to respond to Dan so if I do not get around to responding to this please do not feel you are being ignored.

 

[oldhermit]

In regards to Acts 22:16? The Greek aorist participle, epikalesamenos, translated "calling on His name" refers either to action that is simultaneous with or before that of the main verb, "be baptized." Here Paul’s calling on Christ’s name for salvation preceded his water baptism. The participle may be translated "having called on His name" which makes more sense, as it would clearly indicate the order of the events.

Kenneth Wuest picks up on this Greek nuance and translates the verse as follows: "And now, why are you delaying? Having arisen, be baptized and wash away your sins, having previously called upon His Name" (Acts 22:16, Wuest's Expanded NT).

As Greek scholar AT Robertson points out - baptism is the picture of death, burial and resurrection, so here baptism pictures the change that had already taken place when Paul surrendered to Jesus on the way. Baptism here pictures the washing away of sins by the blood of Christ.

Our sins are already washed away by the blood of Christ and we are saved when we repent/believe/call upon the name of the Lord (Acts 3:19; Acts 10:43; Romans 3:24-26; 10:13) BEFORE water baptism. Paul tells that he did not receive or hear the Gospel from Ananias, but rather he heard it directly from Christ. Galatians 1:11-12 says, "For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ."

It also should be noted that Paul at the time when Ananias prayed for him to receive his sight, he was filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 9:17)--this was before he was baptized (Acts 9:18). Verse 17 connects his being filled with the Spirit with the receiving of his sight. We know that he received his sight prior to his water baptism.

It is also interesting that when Paul recounted this event again later in Acts (Acts 26:12-18), he did not mention Ananias or what Ananias said to him at all. Verse 18 again would confirm the idea that Paul received Christ as Savior prior to receiving water baptism since here Christ is telling Paul he will be a messenger for Him concerning forgiveness of sins for Gentiles as they have faith in Him. It would seem unlikely that Christ would commission Paul if Paul had not yet believed in Him and was not saved.

*No single text of Scripture is to be interpreted out of context, and this includes the entirety of Scripture. No scripture is to be interpretated in isololation from the totality of Scripture. Practically speaking, a singular and obscure verse is to be subservient to multiple and clear verses, and not vice versa.

Well, I am still have technical issues but I am going to give it a shot.
Let me first suggest you expand your sources. Clearly you do not know what the Wuest N.T. is. This is one of the worst and most unreliable paraphrased version in existence. The Wuest N.T. is NOT a translation. It is a one-man paraphrase.

Admittedly, I have a lot of trouble with the use of Greek participles because their uses are so complicated and varied. However, I am going to present how I believe the use of the participle ἐπικαλεσάμενος is used in this clause. If I am wrong, I hope Angela will correct me on this.

As an adverbial participle, ἐπικαλεσάμενος is linked to the main verb which here is "be baptized" and serves to modify an action that answers when, how, or why. It defines in what manner the action of the main verb took place. How, or in what manner did Paul 'call on the name of the Lord'? By being baptized. The result was the washing away of sin. Washing is repeatedly associated in scripture with the act of baptism. Peter describes the act of baptism is just this same way in 1 Peter 3:21. "And corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal toGod for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." Here, Peter makes a statement that is an absolute - "baptism now saves you." What does the sinner do when he is baptized? He makes an appeal to God for a clean conscience.

Robertson is correct. Baptism is a picture or a symbol of the death, burial and resurrection. His second point however is not correct. It is not a picture of what has already taken place but of what is taking place in baptism. As Paul clearly states, baptism is what joins us to the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. How does one take part in the death of Christ? He is baptized into the death of Christ. This is where we come into contact with the blood of Christ.

 

[DJ2]

Acts 22:16 (NASB)
[SUP]16 [/SUP] 'Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.'

Water baptism does not produce forgiveness of sins. This is referring to the cleansing of our consciences that comes through obeying the Lord’s commands. That is what Peter spoke of in 1 Peter 3:21, “The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”

Physical water baptism no more makes a person receive the forgiveness of sins then Daffy Duck and Donald Duck are the 2 witnesses in the book of Revelation.

The baptism into Christ is what makes a person whole and water baptism is an outward sign of remembrance or symbol of what happened to us in Christ. We were baptized into His death and we rose again with Him when we believed.

You are but fighting the obvious. "Baptism is like that. It saves you now - not because it removes dirt from your body but because it is the mark of a good conscience toward God. Your salvation comes through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." (CEB) You read this verse and you think its means what?? How much clearer can a verse be? "What are you waiting for, arise and be baptized washing away your sins." you read this and you think what?? It is not reasonable to read these and other verses and come to the view that baptism is not part of the Great Commission. Even a 1st year paralegal could read this and understand your view is slanted to say the least. It is the faith alone sects that are not harmonizing the scriptures.

 

[mailmandan]

Peter describes the act of baptism is just this same way in 1 Peter 3:21. "And corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal toGod for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." Here, Peter makes a statement that is an absolute - "baptism now saves you." What does the sinner do when he is baptized? He makes an appeal to God for a clean conscience.

1 Peter 3:21 tells us that baptism now saves you, yet when Peter uses this phrase he continues in the same sentence to explain exactly what he means by it. He says that baptism now saves you-not the removal of dirt from the flesh (that is, not as an outward, physical act which washes dirt from the body--that is not what saves you), "but an appeal to God for a good conscience" (that is, as an inward, spiritual transaction between God and the individual, a transaction that is symbolized by the outward ceremony of water baptism). Baptism is a pledge to God made from a good conscience. We could paraphrase Peter's statement by saying, "Baptism now saves you--not the outward physical ceremony of baptism but the inward spiritual reality which baptism represents." By saying, "not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience -through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, Peter guards against saving power to the physical ceremony itself. So in 1 Peter 3:21; it's not the water itself that saves us, but the "appeal-to-God-for-good-conscience". Just as the eight people in the ark were "saved THROUGH water" as they were IN THE ARK. They were not literally saved "by" the water. Hebrews 11:7 is clear on this point (..built an ark for the SAVING of his household). NOTE: The context reveals that ONLY the righteous (Noah and his family) were DRY and therefore SAFE. In contrast, ONLY THE WICKED IN NOAH'S DAY CAME IN CONTACT WITH THE WATER AND THEY ALL PERISHED.

The Greek word “antitupon,” as used in I Peter 3: 21, is “an adjective, used as a noun,” and denotes, in the NT, “a corresponding type,” being “said of baptism.” “The circumstances of the flood, the ark and its occupants, formed a type, and baptism forms “a corresponding type,” each setting forth the spiritual realities of the death, burial, and resurrection of believers in their identification with Christ. It is not a case of type and antitype, but of two types, that in Genesis, the type, and baptism, the corresponding type.” Noah was saved by the ark “through (via) water.” Water was not the means of their salvation, but the ark. The ark is what both delivered and preserved them, the two aspects of “salvation.” Their “salvation” was typical of the salvation promised to the Christian. It pictured it. So also does Christian baptism picture the death, burial and resurrection of Christ.

Robertson is correct. Baptism is a picture or a symbol of the death, burial and resurrection. His second point however is not correct. It is not a picture of what has already taken place but of what is taking place in baptism. As Paul clearly states, baptism is what joins us to the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. How does one take part in the death of Christ? He is baptized into the death of Christ.

I agree with Robertson that baptism is a symbol of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ and is a picture of what has already taken place. Robertson goes on to say - Peter explains, does not wash away the filth of the flesh either in a literal sense, as a bath for the body, or in a metaphorical sense of the filth of the soul. No ceremonies really affect the conscience (Hebrews 9:13). Peter here expressly denies baptismal remission of sin. But the interrogation of a good conscience toward God (alla suneidhsewß agaqhß eperwthma eiß qeonold word from eperwtaw (to question as in Mark 9:32; Matthew 16:1), here only in N.T. In ancient Greek it never means answer, but only inquiry. The inscriptions of the age of the Antonines use it of the Senate's approval after inquiry. That may be the sense here, that is, avowal of consecration to God after inquiry, having repented and turned to God and now making this public proclamation of that fact by means of baptism (the symbol of the previous inward change of heart). Thus taken, it matters little whether eiß qeon (toward God) be taken with eperwthma or suneidhsewß. Through the resurrection of Jesus Christ (di anastasewß Ihsou Cristou). For baptism is a symbolic picture of the resurrection of Christ as well as of our own spiritual renewal (Romans 6:2-6). See 1 Peter 1:3 for regeneration made possible by the resurrection of Jesus.

This is where we come into contact with the blood of Christ.

We do not literally contact the blood of Christ in water baptism, just as we do not literally contact the blood of Christ in the wine at communion during the Roman Catholic Mass. As we read in Colossians 1:14, "through His blood" is a reference, not limited to the fluid as if the blood has saving properties in it's chemistry and we contact it in the waters of baptism, but is an expression pointing to the totality of Christ's atoning work as a sacrifice for sin. The word "cross" is used similarly to refer to the whole atoning work of Christ on the cross (1 Corinthians 1:18; Galatians 6:12,14; Ephesians 2:16).

 

[oldhermit]

The word translated faith is found in the Greek lexicon of the Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance and is defined as follows: #4102; pistis; persuasion, i.e. credence; moral conviction (of religious truth, or the truthfulness of God or a religious teacher), *especially reliance upon Christ for salvation*; abstractly, constancy in such profession; by extension, the system of religious (Gospel) truth itself:--assurance, belief, believe, faith, fidelity.

The word translated believe is from the greek word pisteuō which means "to have faith (in, upon, or with respect to, a person or thing), that is, credit; by implication to entrust (especially one’s spiritual well being to Christ)." The word "believe" can describe mere mental assent, as in James 2:19 or also include trust and reliance in Christ for salvation, as in Acts 16:31.

In James 2:19, nobody is questioning the fact that the demons believe "mental assent" that "there is one God" but they do not believe/entrust their spiritual well being to Christ; have faith/reliance upon Christ for salvation. Their trust and reliance is in Satan, as demonstrated by their rebellion in heaven and continuous evil works. I believe "mental assent" that George Washington existed and I also believe in the historical facts about George Washington, but I am not trusting in George Washington to save my soul. See the difference?

The Greek words for "pistis" and "pisteuo" are two forms of the same word. "Pistis" is the noun form, "pisteuo" is the verb form. Nothing in the root meaning of either word carries any concept of works. If you believe in Christ/place faith in Christ for salvation, (Acts 10:43; Ephesians 2:8) then you are trusting in Him alone to save you. This belief will result in actions appropriate to the belief (fruit of faith) - but the actions are NOT INHERENT in the belief/faith.

The action that responds to the acceptance is WORKS and we are not saved by works.

Saving belief/faith is more than just an "intellectual acknowledgment" to the existence and historical facts about Christ. Saving belief/faith completely trusts in Christ's finished work of redemption as the ALL-sufficient means of our salvation. No supplements needed.

Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen (Hebrews 11:1). Again, actions which follow are WORKS.

In James 2:14, we read of one who says/claims he has faith but has no works (to back up his claim). The absence of evidence (of works) can be construed of evidence of absence (of faith). Faith is the root of salvation and works are the fruit. No fruit at all demonstrates there is no root. We show our faith by our works, yet we are saved through faith at it's origin.

In Hebrews 11, notice in all of these occurences that it was "by" or "out of" faith, they accomplished these things and NOT faith is "in essence" all of these things. Their faith was genuine and it was proved by their actions (works). So yes, all of these things in Hebrews 11 were done "by" or "out of" faith, yet none of these things are the essence of faith, but are the evidence (fruit) of faith. That is absolutely critical to understand! We are saved by faith at it's origin, not at some time later based on our works. I've heard people get really mixed up before and basically teach that faith "is" baptism, faith "is" multiple acts of obedience, faith "is" works, making no distinction between faith and works that are produced out of faith. While growing up in the Roman Catholic church, I was basically taught the error of wrapping BOTH faith AND works up in a package, and simply stamping faith on the package, then making no clear distinction between faith and works. The end result was salvation through faith (their version of faith) and works.

The fact that it shows up in both noun and verb form does not alter its meaning. Both mean faith or belief. The very fact that pisteuo is a verb certifies that there is actionable behavior linked to pistis. Scripture never disonnects the acknowledgement of a set of facts from the behaviors that give legitimacy to what one believes to be true. James says that to do so is not faith. Both of these dynamics are inseparable. James even offers the impossible challenge to prove his point. "If a man says he has faith, but he has no works? Can that faith save him? This is a rhetorical question to which the obvious answer is NO! The challenge is the offered to the one who would attempt to legitimize his faith without works. "You have faith, and I have works; show me your faith without the works, (This is an impossibility) and I will show you my faith by my works.” Thus, works legitimizes the claim of faith. These linking dynamics cannot be separated. This is precisely what the Hebrew writer demonstrates in chapter 11.

 

[slave]

There is not the slightest doubt that whosoever believes in the Lord Jesus has eternal life. We have preached this glad news for many years. As soon as one believes in the Lord Jesus, whoever he may be, he receives eternal life and is thereby forever favored by God.

But let us remember: believing without being baptized is not yet salvation. Indeed, you have believed; indeed, you have eternal life; but you are not yet reckoned as a saved person in the eyes of the world. As long as you are not baptized, you will not be recognized as saved. Why? Because no one knows your difference from the rest of the world. You must rise up and be baptized, declaring the termination of your relationship with the world; then and only then are you saved.

What is baptism? It is your emancipation from the world. It frees you from the brotherhood to which you once belonged. The world knew that you were one with it, but the moment you are baptized, it immediately becomes aware of the fact that you are finished with it. The friendship which you had maintained so many years has now come to an end. You were buried in the tomb, you terminated your course in the world. Before baptism, you knew you had eternal life; after baptism, you know you are saved. Everybody recognizes that you are the Lord’s, for you belong to Him.

“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” Why? Because having believed and been baptized, it is now an open fact where one stands. Were there no faith, there would not be that inward fact which alone makes things real. But with that inward reality, baptism puts one outside of the world and terminates the former relationship with the world. Baptism, therefore, is separation.

New International Version
If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his Father's glory with the holy angels."