Replies

If you are remotely interested there are other interpretations to Acts 2:38 than YOUR interpretation.

"We feel that Dr. A. T. Robertson's comments from earlier this century are very meaningful:"

"This phrase is the subject of endless controversy as men look at it from the standpoint of sacramental or of evangelical theology. In themselves the words can express aim or purpose for that use of "eis" does exist as in 1 Cor. 2:7....But then another usage exists which is just as good Greek as the use of "eis" for aim or purpose. It is seen in Matt. 10:41 in three examples "eis onoma prophetou, diakaiou, mathetou" where it cannot be purpose or aim, but rather the basis or ground, on the basis of the name of prophet, righteous man, disciple, because one is, etc. It is seen again in Matt. 12:41 about the preaching of Jonah....They repented because of (or at) the preaching of Jonah. The illustrations of both usages are numerous in the N.T. and the Koine generally (Robertson, Grammar, p. 592). 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 (A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, III:35-36)."

I'll refer you to A Brief Rebuttal of Baptismal Regeneration by James White for a more detailed analysis.

IMHO-

1) People WANT to be baptized because it identifies them with Christ.

2) The ONLY reason they want to identify with Christ is because they are already regenerated.

3) If professing Christians do NOT want to be baptized, I think that qualifies for a BIG question mark as to whether they were actually regenerated because this is a sacrament instituted by the Lord.

4) Unregenerated people don't ask to become regenerated through baptism. To me this is a big "DUH"!

5) There are other places Peter preaches and never mentions baptism (e.g Act 15:7)

6) There are PLENTY of non-believers out there who get baptized every day. Their sins are not remitted.

7) And while I gave you the example of Cornelius all you could say about it was that he was special.

The belief by some groups of baptismal regeneration has been around for 20 centuries. It is held by the Roman Catholics, Mormons, Church of Christ and others. I'm confident you and I are not going to clear this up.

I am very familiar with A.T. Robertson's comments on this issue. I will humbly submit that he, like you, are biased. If you will notice, he conveniently leaves out Matthew 26:28, which is the verse that contains the exact same Greek phrase as Acts 2:38. In the Matthew passage, Christ Himself says that His blood was shed for remission of sins. I doubt you would say that in that passage, Christ is saying that He shed his blood because of the remission of sins, would you? Then why do you want to translate Acts 2:38 in that manner, even though no reputable translation on the face of this earth has ever translated Acts 2:38 that way?

You still have not logically answered how you can translate the same phrase, not just the word eis, but the same entire phrase, two totally opposite ways.