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

[LightBearer316]

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.

That’s a classic misunderstanding of the Greek preposition “εἰς” (eis) in Acts 2:38 — a key verse often debated in baptismal-regeneration discussions. Blue155 is arguing that “for” (eis aphesin hamartiōn) cannot mean “because of,” but that’s not linguistically accurate. Actually, the Greek preposition “εἰς” (eis) is flexible — it can mean “for,” “into,” “unto,” or even “because of” depending on context. It’s used that way in several passages:

• Matthew 12:41 — “They repented at (eis) the preaching of Jonah,” meaning because of his preaching, not in order to obtain it.
• Romans 10:10 — “With the heart man believeth unto (eis) righteousness,” showing a result or evidence of what already exists, not the cause of it.

In Acts 2:38, the structure links repentance and remission of sins, while baptism follows as the outward sign of that inward reality. Peter’s message matches the same order seen throughout Acts — faith first, forgiveness next, baptism afterward (Acts 10:43–48; Ephesians 1:13).

So “εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν” can legitimately be rendered “because of the remission of sins” — not to obtain it. The grammar allows it; the broader context confirms it.

Grace and peace.

 

[LightBearer316]

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?

Here Blue155 is trying to collapse repentance, baptism, and forgiveness into a single act — but Scripture (and Greek grammar) separates the cause of forgiveness (faith in Christ’s blood) from the sign of it (baptism). Scripture itself answers it plainly — forgiveness comes through faith in Christ’s blood, not through the act of water baptism.

Peter said just two chapters later:

“To Him give all the prophets witness, that through His name whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of sins.”​

— Acts 10:43 (KJV)​

Notice: belief is the condition; baptism follows as the confession of that faith (Acts 10:47–48). The same pattern appears in Ephesians 1:7 — “In whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins,” and in Romans 3:25, where faith in His blood is the means of receiving remission.

Baptism doesn’t apply the blood — it testifies that the believer has already been cleansed by it. That’s why Peter carefully qualifies in 1 Peter 3:21:

“Not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God.”​

The moment of forgiveness is when one believes in Christ’s finished work, not when they touch water. The water doesn’t wash away sin — the blood already did.

Grace and peace.

 

[LightBearer316]

“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!!

Here we have Blue155 making a common interpretive leap — assuming “for the remission of sins” must mean “in order to obtain” remission, not “because of” remission. The key issue is not English usage but Greek syntax and theology across Acts.
I appreciate your zeal for Scripture, Blue — but we have to let context define how “εἰς” (eis) functions, not just English intuition.


In Acts 2:38, “repent” is plural and so is “be baptized,” but the phrase “for the remission of sins” is grammatically tied to repentance, not baptism. Peter is calling Israel to repent — to turn to Christ whom they crucified — and baptism follows as the public confession of that repentance.


If baptism itself brought forgiveness, then Acts 10:43–48 would be impossible — Cornelius and his household received remission of sins through faith (v. 43) before baptism (v. 48). That’s the same sequence Paul teaches everywhere:

“In whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins” — Ephesians 1:7
“Whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of sins.” — Acts 10:43​

So “εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν” in Acts 2:38 carries the sense “because of” or “in connection with” remission — the same way it’s used in Matthew 12:41: “They repented at (eis) the preaching of Jonah.”


Peter’s point wasn’t to add water to the cross — it was to call sinners to faith and repentance toward the One whose blood already secured the remission he preached.


Grace and peace.

 

[studier]

Greek lexicons like BDAG, Thayer, and grammarians such as A.T. Robertson and Nigel Turner document this causal usage of eis.
It’s not speculation; it’s recognized scholarship. The fact that eis is flexible doesn’t make Scripture uncertain — it means we must read it carefully, just as translators do with other polysemous words.

Even Greek grammarians like A.T. Robertson (in Word Pictures in the New Testament) and Nigel Turner (Grammatical Insights into the New Testament) acknowledge this permissible causal nuance. It’s not theology forcing the text — it’s recognizing that prepositions flex according to usage.[/QUOTE]

No response to requests to substantiate this repeated claim that the above listed resources document this causal usage of eis" which affects Scriptures like Acts2:38 re: baptism. I won't assume the burden of proof that rests with @LightBearer316 to prove his claim. A few resources and comments:

• @mailmandan earlier in this thread provided a link where the, or some of the, "A.T. Robertson" comments can be read: "Acts 2 - Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org https://share.google/nETi40vQPs6jT3pWI"
  • We can all read it for ourselves and see how it compares to the following resources.
• BDAG:
  • I've read through the entire entry re: eis in BDAG many times over the years and again in preparation for this statement. It does not support the causal use of eis.
  • BDAG to my knowledge is not public domain so I can't link a copy here. I'm happy to copy and paste the entire entry on "eis" if anyone requests it. It's lengthy.
  • I've tested AI to see if it has access to BDAG, which it apparently does. Here's my question to ChatGPT and it's response:
    • Q: does BDAG support the causal use of "eis"?
    • R: Excellent question — and this is a key one for anyone debating “eis = because of.”
      • Here’s the careful answer:
        • BDAG (3rd ed.) lists the causal use of εἰς (eis) as a disputed and marginal category, not a normal or primary sense. The editors include it only with caution and note that such uses are better understood as goal- or result-oriented.
      • Let’s look precisely:
        • BDAG’s major categories for εἰς are:
          • 1. Spatial: into, toward, among
          • 2. Temporal: until
          • 3. Figurative / purpose / result: for, in order to, to
          • 4. Reference / relation: with respect to, in regard to
          • Only under 3 or 4, BDAG mentions (rarely) that some contexts have been interpreted causally — but they do not endorse that meaning.
          • Example: under 3bγ (purpose/result), BDAG notes debates about eis aphesin hamartiōn (“for forgiveness of sins,” e.g., Mark 1:4; Acts 2:38). It acknowledges that some take eis there as causal (“because of forgiveness”), but the lexicon explicitly states this is “not supported by Greek usage.”
      • So, in short:
        • BDAG does mention the causal interpretation in discussions of debated texts.
        • BDAG does not support causal as a legitimate sense of eis.
        • It consistently treats eis as expressing goal, result, or direction — not cause.
      • If you want a crisp summary statement:
        • BDAG notes that some interpreters have proposed a causal sense of eis in a few verses, but it does not list “because of” as a legitimate meaning. It consistently understands eis as goal- or result-oriented, not causal.
• Thayer's:
  • I've read through the entire entry re: eis in Thayer's many times over the years and again in preparation for this statement. It does not support the causal use of eis.
  • Link to Thayer's re: "eis"
  • Thayer's does not support the causal use of eis.
  • Since I used ChatGPT for BDAG, I'm trying it for Thayer's:
    • Q: does Thayer's support the causal use of "eis"?
    • R: Good — that’s another important check, since Thayer’s is often cited by those trying to defend “eis = because of.”
      • Here’s the careful answer:
        • Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon (1889) — under εἰς — lists its main meanings as “into, to, toward, for, among,” and gives several figurative extensions (purpose, result, reference).
        • Thayer does mention that some have understood εἰς causally in a few texts (especially Matt 3:11 and Acts 2:38), but he himself does not endorse that sense
        • His wording (abridged and paraphrased for clarity):
          • “Some would render εἰς in these places as because of (i.e., on account of) forgiveness or repentance, but this is against the constant use of the preposition in the New Testament.”
        • So like BDAG, Thayer acknowledges the interpretation as something people argue, but he rejects it as contrary to normal Greek usage.
        • Summary:
          • Thayer mentions causal as a proposed view
          • Thayer denies causal as a legitimate meaning
          • His conclusion is that εἰς indicates purpose or goal (“in order to,” “with a view to”) — not “because of.”
        • If you want a tight statement for reference use:
          • Thayer acknowledges that some have taken εἰς as causal in a few passages, but he explicitly rejects that as contrary to New Testament Greek usage, affirming instead that εἰς expresses direction, goal, or purpose
• Nigel Turner:
  • I don't have a copy.
  • There are a few online but the ones I looked at were only excerpts.
  • So, I queried ChatGPT since it was able to find BDAG:
    • Q: Does Nigel Turner (Grammatical Insights into the New Testament) support the causal use of "eis"?
    • R: Excellent question — and one that goes to the heart of how careful Greek grammarians (not theologians) have treated εἰς.
      • Short answer:
        • No, Nigel Turner does not support a true causal sense of εἰς. Like BDAG and Thayer, he acknowledges that some interpreters have argued for it in certain passages (especially Acts 2:38), but he clearly rejects the idea that Greek εἰς itself ever means “because of.”
      • Detailed Explanation (Turner, Grammatical Insights into the New Testament, 1965):
        • In his section on εἰς, Turner argues that its essential force is directional — “into,” “toward,” or figuratively “unto / with a view to.”
        • He notes that the supposed causal use arises from theological attempts to harmonize certain texts (e.g., baptism εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν).
        • Turner’s comment (paraphrased closely):
          • “Eis in such expressions points to the aim or end in view, not to a reason why something has been done.”
        • He even adds that the Hellenistic and papyrological evidence does not show εἰς ever being used strictly causally (i.e., meaning “because of”).
        • In Moulton & Turner, Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. 3 (Syntax), he makes the same distinction:
          • “There is no example where εἰς unambiguously means ‘because of.’ The regular causal prepositions (διὰ with the accusative, ἕνεκα, χάριν) suffice for that idea.”
        • Concise takeaway:
          • Nigel Turner explicitly denies that εἰς ever carries a causal sense in the New Testament. He maintains its essential forward-looking force — “into,” “toward,” or “with a view to” — and treats causal readings as theological, not grammatical.
• For what reads like a pretty comprehensive overview of this issue as it relates to Acts2:38, I enjoyed this 3-part work (linked). I was able to get past the sign in by clicking cancel a couple times. I accessed parts 2-3 at the bottom of each preceding part.

It seems clear that of the resources @LightBearer316 says document the causal use of eis, only A.T. Robertson may support him and that the others reject the theory, which would include rejecting Robertson's view.

Please do your homework before you post purported "documented" proof of what you say. And, if you're going to post such proofs, please provide links as @mailmandan did. If you disagree with any of the above, please be clear as to why. We're dealing with God's Word - accuracy matters.

 

[Blue155]

@LightBearer316
Instead of taking the Bible at face value, you try to twist passages against each other rather than harmonizing them. Any conclusion that Acts 2:38doesn’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.

 

[LightBearer316]

@Blue155 — where did you learn your theology? What church or denomination do you attend, and which Bible translation are you reading from?


Grace and peace.

 

[LightBearer316]

@LightBearer316
Instead of taking the Bible at face value, you try to twist passages against each other rather than harmonizing them. Any conclusion that Acts 2:38doesn’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.

Now, Blue155 is doubling down — accusing me of “twisting passages” while ironically refusing to harmonize Acts 2:38 with the rest of Scripture!

Actually, that’s the very opposite of what I’m doing — I’m harmonizing Scripture, not isolating it. Truth never contradicts truth, so Acts 2:38 has to agree with the rest of the New Testament pattern:

• Faith precedes forgiveness – “Whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of sins” (Acts 10:43 KJV).
• Forgiveness precedes baptism – Cornelius’ household received the Spirit before water baptism (Acts 10:47-48 KJV).
• Baptism follows salvation – the outward confession of the inward faith (Romans 10:9-10; 1 Peter 3:21 KJV).

Taking Acts 2:38 KJV in isolation, without these passages, would create contradiction within Scripture itself. Peter wasn’t preaching a new formula for salvation but calling Israel to repentance and faith in the very Messiah they crucified — baptism being the sign of that repentance.

That is taking the Bible at face value — all of it, not just one verse pulled out of context.

2 Timothy 2:15 (KJV):

“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”​

Rightly dividing the Word of truth doesn’t mean fragmenting the Bible into contradictions — it means harmonizing every passage so that truth supports truth, just as God intended.

Grace and peace.

 

[Blue155]

Now, Blue155 is doubling down — accusing me of “twisting passages” while ironically refusing to harmonize Acts 2:38 with the rest of Scripture!

Actually, that’s the very opposite of what I’m doing — I’m harmonizing Scripture, not isolating it. Truth never contradicts truth, so Acts 2:38 has to agree with the rest of the New Testament pattern:

• Faith precedes forgiveness – “Whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of sins” (Acts 10:43 KJV).
• Forgiveness precedes baptism – Cornelius’ household received the Spirit before water baptism (Acts 10:47-48 KJV).
• Baptism follows salvation – the outward confession of the inward faith (Romans 10:9-10; 1 Peter 3:21 KJV).

Taking Acts 2:38 in isolation, without these passages, would create contradiction within Scripture itself. Peter wasn’t preaching a new formula for salvation but calling Israel to repentance and faith in the very Messiah they crucified — baptism being the sign of that repentance.

That is taking the Bible at face value — all of it, not just one verse pulled out of context.

Grace and peace.

If I’m pulling it out of context, then prove they were saved when or before Peter said that.

 

[LightBearer316]

If I’m pulling it out of context, then prove they were saved when or before Peter said that.

That’s exactly what Acts 10 answers — Cornelius and his household believed and received the Holy Spirit before baptism.

“While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.” — Acts 10:44 (KJV)​

“Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?” — Acts 10:47 (KJV)​

They received the Spirit — the seal of salvation (Ephesians 1:13) — before Peter commanded baptism. That’s the same pattern everywhere in the New Testament: faith --> forgiveness --> baptism.

Peter’s call in Acts 2:38 was consistent with that same order — repentance toward God, faith in Christ, and baptism as the outward sign of the inward cleansing already accomplished by His blood.

Grace and peace.

 

[Blue155]

That’s exactly what Acts 10 answers — Cornelius and his household believed and received the Holy Spirit before baptism.

“While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.” — Acts 10:44 (KJV)​

“Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?” — Acts 10:47 (KJV)​

They received the Spirit — the seal of salvation (Ephesians 1:13) — before Peter commanded baptism. That’s the same pattern everywhere in the New Testament: faith --> forgiveness --> baptism.

Peter’s call in Acts 2:38 was consistent with that same order — repentance toward God, faith in Christ, and baptism as the outward sign of the inward cleansing already accomplished by His blood.

Grace and peace.

So, the people on Pentecost were saved before Peter said that?

 

[LightBearer316]

Three Main Heresies of Oneness / “Jesus Only” / UPCI Teaching

1. Denial of the Trinity – They reject the biblical view of one God in three eternal Persons (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) and teach Modalism — one Person appearing in different roles.
    Refuted by: Matthew 3:16–17 (KJV), John 1:1–2 (KJV), John 14:16 (KJV)
2. Baptismal Regeneration – They claim salvation and forgiveness come only through baptism “in Jesus’ name,” rather than through faith in Christ’s finished work.
    Refuted by: Acts 10:43–48 (KJV), Romans 10:9–10 (KJV), Ephesians 2:8–9 (KJV)
3. Tongues as Proof of Salvation – They insist speaking in tongues is the necessary sign of receiving the Holy Spirit.
    Refuted by: Romans 8:9 (KJV), 1 Corinthians 12:13 (KJV), 1 Corinthians 12:30 (KJV)

Salvation is by grace through faith, not by water or works — and the true God is eternally Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

Grace and peace
Acts 17:11 (KJV)
“These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.”

 

[LightBearer316]

So, the people on Pentecost were saved before Peter said that?

That’s a classic Oneness-style trap question — but it’s easy to answer biblically. You see, the people at Pentecost were saved when they believed Peter’s message and trusted in Christ, not merely when they entered the water.

Acts 2:37 shows their hearts were already “pricked,” meaning conviction and repentance had begun. Peter then told them to “repent, and be baptized” as the response to faith — not the means to earn forgiveness.

The same pattern continues throughout Acts:

• Faith first: “Whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of sins.” – Acts 10:43 (KJV)
• Then baptism: “They that gladly received his word were baptized.” – Acts 2:41 (KJV)

Forgiveness always flows from the blood of Christ received by faith — baptism follows as the sign of that salvation.

Grace and peace.

 

[Blue155]

So, they were saved before or after they repented and was baptized for the remission of sins?

 

[Blue155]

You say they were saved when they believed..so did they believe before they repented and was baptized for the remission of sins? Or did they believe when they obeyed what Peter said?

 

[LightBearer316]

So, they were saved before or after they repented and was baptized for the remission of sins?

That’s the predictable follow-up — you are trying to box salvation into the act of baptism rather than through faith and repentance.
They were saved when they repented and believed — that’s the moment faith received what Christ already accomplished on the cross.

Repentance and faith are the heart’s response to the gospel; baptism is the public declaration of that response. Scripture always places forgiveness and the gift of the Spirit at the point of belief — before water baptism (Acts 10:43–48 KJV; Ephesians 1:13 KJV).

Baptism follows as obedience, not as the means of obtaining salvation.

Grace and peace.

 

[LightBearer316]

You say they were saved when they believed..so did they believe before they repented and was baptized for the remission of sins? Or did they believe when they obeyed what Peter said?

Now you are trying to force a sequence (repent -> baptize -> believe), but Scripture shows repentance and faith are inseparable responses to the gospel, and baptism follows as the result of that faith.

Repentance and belief are two sides of the same coin — you can’t truly repent without believing, and you can’t truly believe without turning to God. They happen together when a person responds to the gospel in faith.

That’s why Peter said “repent” and not “believe” in Acts 2:38 — he was addressing people who already believed his message (Acts 2:37 KJV: “they were pricked in their heart”). Their repentance was the proof of that faith, and baptism was the outward expression of it.

Salvation came the moment they trusted Christ — before the water — just as it did for Cornelius’ household in Acts 10:43–48 (KJV).

I’d encourage you to take a step back and reread my responses carefully — and even more, to go over the Scriptures prayerfully and ask God for clarity on what they’re really saying.

Grace and peace.

 

[Blue155]

That’s the predictable follow-up — you are trying to box salvation into the act of baptism rather than through faith and repentance.
They were saved when they repented and believed — that’s the moment faith received what Christ already accomplished on the cross.

Repentance and faith are the heart’s response to the gospel; baptism is the public declaration of that response. Scripture always places forgiveness and the gift of the Spirit at the point of belief — before water baptism (Acts 10:43–48 KJV; Ephesians 1:13 KJV).

Baptism follows as obedience, not as the means of obtaining salvation.

Grace and peace.

So did they have remission of sins before or after Peter said that?

 

[Blue155]

Now you are trying to force a sequence (repent -> baptize -> believe), but Scripture shows repentance and faith are inseparable responses to the gospel, and baptism follows as the result of that faith.

Repentance and belief are two sides of the same coin — you can’t truly repent without believing, and you can’t truly believe without turning to God. They happen together when a person responds to the gospel in faith.

That’s why Peter said “repent” and not “believe” in Acts 2:38 — he was addressing people who already believed his message (Acts 2:37 KJV: “they were pricked in their heart”). Their repentance was the proof of that faith, and baptism was the outward expression of it.

Salvation came the moment they trusted Christ — before the water — just as it did for Cornelius’ household in Acts 10:43–48 (KJV).

I’d encourage you to take a step back and reread my responses carefully — and even more, to go over the Scriptures prayerfully and ask God for clarity on what they’re really saying.

Grace and peace.

But if they already believed as in having salvation, then there’d be no need for Peter to tell them to repent. But Peter told them to repent. And told them to be baptized for the remission of sins. So, clearly they weren’t saved before.

 

[LightBearer316]

The very fact that you’re forcing a sequence like that, Blue155, shows a misunderstanding of how Scripture harmonizes repentance and faith. They’re never divided that way in the New Testament.

Grace and Peace

 

[LightBearer316]

But if they already believed as in having salvation, then there’d be no need for Peter to tell them to repent. But Peter told them to repent. And told them to be baptized for the remission of sins. So, clearly they weren’t saved before.

They weren’t told to repent in order to be saved, but because they believed the message and were convicted in their hearts (Acts 2:37 KJV).
Repentance was the immediate fruit of that belief — the proof that faith was real — not a separate step before salvation.
Peter’s call to baptism was the outward sign of their inward faith, the same pattern seen throughout the New Testament (Acts 10:43–48 KJV; Ephesians 1:13 KJV).

Again... I’d encourage you to take a step back and reread my responses carefully — and even more, to go over the Scriptures prayerfully and ask God for clarity on what they’re really saying. As in take a few days...

Grace and peace.