Acts 2:38 Comparison: Evangelical vs. Oneness / Baptismal-Regeneration View

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
That wasn't a question; that was my assertion. it links them together in what we must do; but not necessarily in other ways.

No it does not imply something has already happened; we need to repent because God is going to destroy his enemies in the future- not because he already destroyed them.

Similar phrase, yes; but that doesn't mean it means the same thing. His blood was poured out for the purpose of remission; but, not so he could receive remission.
“Because of” implies something that has already happened. The man went to jail “because of” murder. The nation was judged “because of” of their sins.

I never said Jesus said He needed remission of sins.

I’m saying He shed His blood so WE could receive the remission of sins!! (Mt. 26:28)

And that’s exactly what Peter meant when he said repent and be baptized for the remission of sins.

He didn’t say be baptized because of already having them forgiven!!

They were told to repent and be baptized for!!
 
“Because of” implies something that has already happened.
It implies a reason for something, regardless of time. Just like "for" doesn't necessarily mean the future.
I’m saying He shed His blood so WE could receive the remission of sins!!
That's obviously true; but it doesn't say "So the many can receive remission of sins upon baptism"; and neither does acts 2:38 say anything about timing of "receiving".
He didn’t say be baptized because of already having them forgiven!!
Right; he said be baptized "for" the remission of sins; which still implies reason; but nothing else- including exactly when and how they are forgiven.
 
@SomeDisciple, when one believes in Jesus and believes in Him enough to repent and is baptized for the remission of sins,

Acts 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

How do we know they did believe? Because in Acts 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

When one repents and is baptized for the remission of sins, they are forgiven by the blood of Christ, because the blood is what remits sins. Peter would not have told them how to receive the remission of sins without the blood of Jesus.

Because Jesus told His apostles “For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins”

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.

And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God

Thus, “for the remission of sins” would be meaning to receive forgiveness of sins by the blood of Christ, as without shedding of blood there is no remission of sins.

So, if they didn’t get forgiveness by the blood, then do tell what Peter was saying?
 
How do we know they did believe? Because in Acts 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
That's right; we know (in this case) that they believed not because it says they repented, or were baptized- we know they believed because they received the Holy Ghost. Otherwise, maybe somebody could forbid water if they hadn't made some kind of testimony; you wouldn't want to baptize unbelievers unless you were just trying to stack your church roster.

When one repents and is baptized for the remission of sins, they are forgiven by the blood of Christ, because the blood is what remits sins. Peter would not have told them how to receive the remission of sins without the blood of Jesus.
Well, it not really recorded that he went into all the details that are in Hebrews; but sure, he covered the life, death, and resurrection, and how he was seen by witnesses and will judge the world and then it says "anyone who believes in him receives forgiveness through his name". Not "receives forgiveness immediately at or through water baptism."

Thus, “for the remission of sins” would be meaning to receive forgiveness of sins by the blood of Christ, as without shedding of blood there is no remission of sins.
"Remisson of sins" and "forgiveness of sins" have pretty much the same meaning; and they are by the blood of Christ; but it doesn't tie the timing of the application of his blood to the believer to water baptism.
 
That's right; we know (in this case) that they believed not because it says they repented, or were baptized- we know they believed because they received the Holy Ghost. Otherwise, maybe somebody could forbid water if they hadn't made some kind of testimony; you wouldn't want to baptize unbelievers unless you were just trying to stack your church roster.


Well, it not really recorded that he went into all the details that are in Hebrews; but sure, he covered the life, death, and resurrection, and how he was seen by witnesses and will judge the world and then it says "anyone who believes in him receives forgiveness through his name". Not "receives forgiveness immediately at or through water baptism."


"Remisson of sins" and "forgiveness of sins" have pretty much the same meaning; and they are by the blood of Christ; but it doesn't tie the timing of the application of his blood to the believer to water baptism.
Then why were they baptized? For the remission of sins. How is one’s sins remitted? By the blood of Christ. So, when one is baptized for the remission of sins, what then is remitting the sins at that moment?
 
Yes

Yes

it doesn't say their sins are being remitted at the moment they are baptized for the remission of sins.
Let’s see…one is baptized for the remission of sins…which would mean for the forgiveness of sins…which would mean forgiven by the blood of Christ, as without the shedding of blood there is no remission…yet you are wanting to say the blood of Christ doesn’t forgive sin the moment one is baptized to have the forgiveness of sins by the blood of Christ. At what point does one get forgiveness/remission of sins by the blood when they repent and are baptized? And if they don’t, then are they still lost in sins (even though they repented and were baptized for the remission of sins, which would be by the blood of Christ)?
 
Let’s see…one is baptized for the remission of sins…which would mean for the forgiveness of sins…which would mean forgiven by the blood of Christ, as without the shedding of blood there is no remission…yet you are wanting to say the blood of Christ doesn’t forgive sin the moment one is baptized to have the forgiveness of sins by the blood of Christ. At what point does one get forgiveness/remission of sins by the blood when they repent and are baptized? And if they don’t, then are they still lost in sins (even though they repented and were baptized for the remission of sins, which would be by the blood of Christ)?
Who are you, Francis Scott Key?
 
I disagree with you guys that it is only looking forward; because purpose is an "intended outcome" which exists in the form of intent before it exists as an actual outcome; so when we are talking about taking action "for" or "toward" a purpose, it is with reference to the actions' ability to move the actual situation "toward" the intent that we had before we ever took any action; which is also why we are acting on account of/because of that intent- rather than "foreword" to a specific point in time and space where our intentions are actualized.

Intent may come first in thought, but eis does not express that cause - it expresses direction or goal. Greek is precise here: dia for example points to cause; eis points to aim or result. The issue is keeping the language precise in what it actually conveys.
 
There is no way “for” in Acts 2:38 means “because of”. If they had already received the remission of sins before baptism, then they also received it before repenting, as “and” links repentance and baptism together.
There is no way that baptism is done "in order to obtain" the remission of sins, which would be in contradiction to numerous passages of scripture. (Luke 24:47; 8:12; John 1:12; 3:15,16,18,36; 6:40,47; 11:25,26; 20:31; Acts 3:19; 5:31; 10:43-47; 13:38-39; 15:7-9; 16:31; Romans 1:16; 3:24-26; 4:5-6; 5:1; 10:4; 1 Corinthians 1:21; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8,9; 2 Timothy 3:15; 1 John 5:4-5, 13 etc..).

As Greek scholar AT Robertson points out - And be baptized every one of you (κα βαπτισθητω εκαστος υμων). Rather, "And let each one of you be baptized." Change of number from plural to singular and of person from second to third. This change marks a break in the thought here that the English translation does not preserve... 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.

Acts 2 - Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org

That makes sense. In Matthew 3:11, we read - I baptize you with water for repentance.. Now was this baptism for "in order to obtain" repentance? OR was it for "on the basis of" repentance? Obviously, the latter. Baptism for "in order to obtain" repentance makes no sense. Repentance "precedes" baptism. *So, baptism is done on the basis of the remission of sins received upon repentance. (Luke 24:47; Acts 3:19; 5:31) That makes sense and is in harmony with multiple passages of scripture, including Acts 2:38. People can have grammatical and lexical arguments until the cows come home and pit, "he said against what they said" all day long but at the end of the day what ultimately settles it for me is that scripture MUST harmonize with scripture or else we have a contradiction and there are no contradictions in God's word.

Luke 24:47 - and that repentance for the forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. *What happened to baptism?

Acts 3:19 - Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord. *What happened to baptism?

Acts 5:31 - Him God has exalted to His right hand to be Prince and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. *What happened to baptism?

Acts 10:43 - Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins. *What happened to baptism?

Acts 11:17 - If therefore God gave them the same gift (Holy Spirit) as He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?” 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.” *What happened to baptism?

Acts 13:38 - Therefore, let it be known to you, brethren, that through this Man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins; 39 and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses. *What happened to baptism?

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. 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. *What happened to baptism?

Acts 16:30 - And he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” *What happened to baptism?

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. *What happened to baptism? *Hermeneutics.

*Be sure to 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 - 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.

*So, the only logical and Biblical conclusion when properly harmonizing scripture with scripture 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; 13:38-39; 15:7-9; 16:31; 26:18) *Perfect Harmony* (y)
 
Intent may come first in thought, but eis does not express that cause - it expresses direction or goal. Greek is precise here: dia for example points to cause; eis points to aim or result.
It does express intent; because it expresses purpose; which is a goal or aim existing in the intent. It is "toward-looking" rather than "Forward-looking"
 
There is no way that baptism is done "in order to obtain" the remission of sins, which would be in contradiction to numerous passages of scripture. (Luke 24:47; 8:12; John 1:12; 3:15,16,18,36; 6:40,47; 11:25,26; 20:31; Acts 3:19; 5:31; 10:43-47; 13:38-39; 15:7-9; 16:31; Romans 1:16; 3:24-26; 4:5-6; 5:1; 10:4; 1 Corinthians 1:21; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8,9; 2 Timothy 3:15; 1 John 5:4-5, 13 etc..).

As Greek scholar AT Robertson points out - And be baptized every one of you (κα βαπτισθητω εκαστος υμων). Rather, "And let each one of you be baptized." Change of number from plural to singular and of person from second to third. This change marks a break in the thought here that the English translation does not preserve... 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.

Acts 2 - Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org

That makes sense. In Matthew 3:11, we read - I baptize you with water for repentance.. Now was this baptism for "in order to obtain" repentance? OR was it for "on the basis of" repentance? Obviously, the latter. Baptism for "in order to obtain" repentance makes no sense. Repentance "precedes" baptism. *So, baptism is done on the basis of the remission of sins received upon repentance. (Luke 24:47; Acts 3:19; 5:31) That makes sense and is in harmony with multiple passages of scripture, including Acts 2:38. People can have grammatical and lexical arguments until the cows come home and pit, "he said against what they said" all day long but at the end of the day what ultimately settles it for me is that scripture MUST harmonize with scripture or else we have a contradiction and there are no contradictions in God's word.

Luke 24:47 - and that repentance for the forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. *What happened to baptism?

Acts 3:19 - Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord. *What happened to baptism?

Acts 5:31 - Him God has exalted to His right hand to be Prince and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. *What happened to baptism?

Acts 10:43 - Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins. *What happened to baptism?

Acts 11:17 - If therefore God gave them the same gift (Holy Spirit) as He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?” 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.” *What happened to baptism?

Acts 13:38 - Therefore, let it be known to you, brethren, that through this Man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins; 39 and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses. *What happened to baptism?

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. 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. *What happened to baptism?

Acts 16:30 - And he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” *What happened to baptism?

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. *What happened to baptism? *Hermeneutics.

*Be sure to 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 - 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.

*So, the only logical and Biblical conclusion when properly harmonizing scripture with scripture 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; 13:38-39; 15:7-9; 16:31; 26:18) *Perfect Harmony* (y)
No.
 
Instead of taking the Bible at face value, some try to twist passages against each other rather than harmonizing them. Any conclusion that Acts 2:38 doesn’t mean ‘for the remission of sins’ is simply false.

Any conclusion that pits other passages to find loopholes against Acts 2:38 are simply false. Any conclusion that uses other passages to contradict Acts 2:38 is simply false. Any conclusion that teaches water saves in Acts 2:38 is simply false. And any conclusion that teaches Acts 2:38 doesn’t teach that to be saved you must repent and be baptized for the remission of sins is simply false.
 
Would it be more accurate to say that "I was baptized" or to say that "I am baptized"?
 
Would it be more accurate to say that "I was baptized" or to say that "I am baptized"?
...considering the aorist imperative active (repent) does not imply whether the action is ongoing or completed.
...and the aorist passive imperative (be baptized) does not imply a specific time
 
Any conclusion that Acts 2:38 doesn’t mean ‘for the remission of sins’ is simply false.
We'd agree that "for" means "for" but you say "for" means "to receive"; but it doesn't say "to recieve" it says "for". So, you're not really taking it at face value either.
 
We'd agree that "for" means "for" but you say "for" means "to receive"; but it doesn't say "to recieve" it says "for". So, you're not really taking it at face value either.
Let’s see…one is baptized for the remission of sins…which would mean for the forgiveness of sins…which would mean forgiven by the blood of Christ, as without the shedding of blood there is no remission…yet you are wanting to say the blood of Christ doesn’t forgive sin the moment one is baptized to have the forgiveness of sins by the blood of Christ. At what point does one get forgiveness/remission of sins by the blood when they repent and are baptized? And if they don’t, then are they still lost in sins (even though they repented and were baptized for the remission of sins, which would be by the blood of Christ)?”

So, at one point does one receive the blood of Christ when they repented and was baptized for the remission of sins?