The plan of salvation is not found in one verse alone.
Posted on 10/06/2015 10:35:57 AM PDT by envisio
I have read a little and did some research on baptism and if there is a need to get baptized as an adult after being baptized as a child.
I looked for the Church’s standing on it and I looked for scripture written about it. My research left me with the half-baked conclusion, in the eyes of the Lord, one only needs baptized once.
I was baptized as a small child without any realization of what was happening. In the 40 years to follow there were plenty of times I was lost, sinning, doing the devils deeds with the liquor and the drugs and the whores and on all fours in the parkinglot puking only to repeat it again the next day for years in my 20s. I never got into any real trouble; no felonies or violence, just drunken antics of a stupid 20something year old. Of course, as we get older, we settle down and put away our childish behavior to be adults. In no way will my wild youth define my legacy since then.
Recent events have tested my faith and questioned a merciful God. Ultimately those events brought me closer to God, and it was my wife’s wish that I completely give my life to Christ. She did and I am quite sure she is sitting by His side right now, praying that I do the same.
I am a sinner. I have confessed my sins and asked for forgiveness. I have accepted Jesus Christ as my savior. I want to complete it with water. I want to get baptized again, but I don’t want it to be vain. I don’t want to do it for myself as a vain show that’s not necessary just to make me feel better. I want to do it because God wants me to do it.
So, since you folks are far more learned on the teachings of the bible, and FReepdom is unmatched in advice dealing with church and God, my question is… Even if the original baptism was done at a time when I did not know what was happening… Is a second baptism common? Is it vain? Will it make me complete in my transition to being born again? Is it necessary?
The Bible says I am correct.
Of course it doesn't...Water doesn't mean baptism any more than Eiffel Tower means Tuna Sandwich...
You cannot show just one verse anywhere in the scriptures where these little ones were denied baptism until a certain age. It does not seem at all strange to me that the model is circumcision where every male child born to the holy people was circumcised on the eighth day, albeit extended now to female children as well. Modern traditions arose to forbid baptism to children. Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven. For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost. How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray? And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray. Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish. And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them. But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein. And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them.
Matthew, Catholic chapter eighteen, Protestant verses ten to fourteen,
Mark, Catholic chapter ten, Protestant verses thirteen to sixteen,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James
Too easy.
It sure is...
Act 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
Act 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
Act 16:32 And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.
Act 16:33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.
Act 16:34 And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.
That's how easy it is...Reading it, then believing it...EVERYONE in the house heard the word, understood the word and believed the word...No babies...
Correct...And it's Spiritual baptism, NOT water baptism...It comes from belief, NOT from water...
John’s baptism was not Christian baptism into Christ.
Nice try though.
Post resurrection, no one is recorded as baptized twice. End of story.
Ha, moving the goal posts I see. The original statement said show you one verse where someone was baptized who had not repented.
No verse can be shown stating the jailers family repented.
Can you produce one?
Believing in God is not repentance.
it is what is in your heart - and not the outward appearance.
Like your attempt to discredit me now is boastful and prideful.
I have never said repentance is not required -
however:
Ephesians 2:8-9King James Version (KJV)
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
The confusion is in you, I merely posted scripture. I am sorry you are perplexed by the mystery of faith.
Any advise would be appreciated . . .
Yeah, that's what you're going to get, any advice of all kinds, most of it useless from a Biblical point of view. The Free Republic forum does have a broad spectrum from "authorities" to mere suggesters, but this is not the place to find the advice you need. Take time to study for yourself what the Bible has to say about it.
But here is a link to the particular baptismal rite you seem to be inquiring about:
VI. BAPTISM OF DISCIPLES OR WATER BAPTISM
This discusses the sixth of seven kinds of baptism treated by the Bible (actually eight, if one includes ritual mikvah purification).
The article is rather lengthy, but quite precise. It is written by a Biblical scholar who has translated the entire New Testament from the Greek, so his knowledge is more than just intimacy with the Greek. If this is of sincere and great concern for you, I suggest you read the article through. In it, the author employs a precise translation that is a supplement to better understanding of the King James Version.
Briefly, water baptism of the believer is a public profession of the faith of the Christ whom he has determined to follow and obey in complete trust. It is not a means of obtaining everlasting life, which is an inner permanent changing of one's mind to trust in the Christ of the Bible, now alive in Heaven, a response prior to the external public profession of that change of mind.
It, of course, does not involve infants; and its proper and only Scripturally-authorized conduct is by complete immersion of the one being baptized, after publicly testifying of his/her full commitment.
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control." Galatians 5:22-23.
Salvation is instantly assured upon the moment of totally committed trust, and it is permanent.
Baptism is simply a reflection of having entered as as disciple into that New Covenant offered by God. It is an induction rite very similar to being sworn into one of the Armed Forces as a recruit.
Placemarker
The plan of salvation is not found in one verse alone.
This statement is quite true, but not in the manner which you have presented it. The verse which makes the connection is Acts 2:38, in which Peter commands the hearers to first repent, and after that to be baptized. The English interpretation of what he said, as given in the KJB, is as follows:
"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."
The connecting word is the preposition "for", and a whole doctrine of salvation is for some built on this word. In that interpretation, the view is that the baptism precipitates the remission, the forgiveness, of ones sins.This would mean that without being baptized, God would have to send one to Hell.
However, Peter was not speaking English, but Koine Greek, and the word εις (eis, sounds like "ice" to us). In the Greek, this is a wide-ranging preposition having several meanings, of which one (depending on the context) is "into, with a view toward, looking forward to" the following condition to which it relates the verb, the action.
If this were the only possible meaning possible for the preposition "eis" the substance of your following argument would also be true.
But that is not the only meaning allowed for "eis." It can also have:
- the hostile positional use translated "against";
- the telic or purpose use translated "for," "for the purpose of," or "in order to";
- the causal use translated "because of";
- the referential use translated "in regard to" or "with reference to";
- the predicate use governing a noun, pronoun, or substantive to express equivalence and ttanslated "as";
- and finally, the foundational use, of which the phrase from Matthew 12:41 is an example:
οτι μετενοησαν εις το κηρυγμα ιωνα
"they repented on the basis of Jonah's preaching"
The one that follows the doctrine of salvation by faith alone is the one clearly applicable in other Scripture is that "eis" has the foundational sense; that is "on the basis of" (or possibly "because of"). The doctrine of salvation by faith alone (of which repentance is only the other side of the coin) in which salvation given is based only on remission of sins on account of repentance and faith on Christ's substitutionary death, exemplary resurrection, and entrance into Heaven.
The doctrine of baptismal regeneration is a shaky reed counting only on the misinterpretation of the preposition of the word "eis", and inconsistent with the overall reliance of Jesus alone as the Savior of men, not their willingness nor opportunity to submit themselves to immersion.
Baptismal regeneration is another gospel, and one to be anathematized. And this is why you don't understand the true gospel preached by sound evangelists that separate the act of baptism and its entailed necessary work of action, from repentance, μετανοέω (metanoehoh), a change only of mind and which does not involve work, only a permanent realignment of one's sense of fearing God, the dread of disappointing or disobeying His commands, a change in rebirth available only through His Beloved Son.
Acts 22:16 is an iffy procedure proposed by Ananias before Paul’s formulation of his own gospel as taught personally by the Lord Jesus Christ. Ananias’ words were not necessarily inspired words, although the history of him saying them is inspired and inerrant. This is not a verse to rest a doctrine of baptismal regeneration on, my FRiend.
A more perfect union and I were discussing this itty bitty word upthread. As best I can discern from your long post here in 194, you also believe that εἰς meant because of and not for.
Which is wrong.
See posts 109 and 110 for more details in εἰς.
Responsibility2nd: No it does not.
imardmd1: Yes, it does, and the whole context of the Bible, God's plan of salvation by faith alone in His Messiah alone confutes your thesis.
The word "for" is not a mistranslation, by which the translators do not yield the nuances of it that are in conflict with the attributes you wish it to take on. The word "unto" does not necessarily yield the sense that baptism releases God to forgive the penitent believer. And the other mistranslations fly in the face of Romans 1:16-17. The NIV, TEV, and whatever this SEB is, using the purposive use, are versions for public consumption, errant, and not ones upon which you can rely.
The foundational use is the one which agrees with Pasuline doctrine. The correct use gives the sense that one should be baptized on the basis of remission of sins that occurred the moment you repented/placed utter reliance on The Christ.
This is as clear as it gets. Commentators, lexicons, concordances, translations and expert Biblical analysis all dispute your limited Baptist interpretation.
Baptism For The Remission Of Sins (2:38)
INTRODUCTION
1. In response to the first gospel sermon, many asked "What shall we
do?" - Ac 2:37
a. They were told to repent and to be baptized - Ac 2:38
b. The reason? "...for the remission of sins" - ibid.
2. Some argue that "for" eis in Acts 2:38 means "because of"...
a. The "causal" sense of eis (because of) as opposed to the
"purpose" sense of eis (in order to)
b. That the Greek preposition eis is so understood elsewhere and
should be here - cf. Mt 12:41
c. That people were to be baptized because their sins were already
forgiven (presumably upon repentance) - cf. A.T. Robertson, Word
Pictures
d. Though Robertson admits this is a conclusion drawn as an
interpreter, not as a grammarian - Robertson, A. T. (1919). A
Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical
Research, p. 592
e. And Robertson may have been biased in his interpretation, for he
was...
1) Founder of Baptist World Alliance in 1900
2) Professor of New Testament interpretation at Southern Baptist
Theological Seminary
3) Son-in-law of John Albert Broadus, co-founder of Southern
Baptist Theological Seminary
[What reasons might there be to conclude that eis means "in order to" or
"for the purpose of" remission of sins, instead of "because of" as
Robertson does? A good place to start is by comparing...]
I. TRANSLATIONS
A. WELL KNOWN TRANSLATIONS...
1. for the remission of sins (KJV, NKJV)
2. for the forgiveness of your sins (ESV, HCSB, ISV, LEB, NAB,
NASB, NCV, NET, NIV, NLT, RSV, TNIV)
-- These skirt the issue, using for which can indicate either
cause or purpose
B. LESSER KNOWN TRANSLATIONS...
1. so that your sins may be forgiven (New Revised Standard
Version)
2. unto the remission of your sins (American Standard Version)
3. for the forgiveness of and release from your sins; (Amplified
Bible)
4. so that your sins will be forgiven (Contemporary English
Version, God's Word Translation, Good News Translation)
5. so that you may have your sins forgiven (JB Phillips New
Testament)
6. so your sins are forgiven (The Message)
7. Then your sins will be forgiven (New International Readers
Version)
8. and your sins will be forgiven (New Life Version)
9. Your wrong ways will be forgiven you (Worldwide English NT)
10. into remission of your sins (Wycliffe Bible
11. to remission of sins (Young's Literal Translation)
-- These all translate eis as indicating purpose (so that, unto,
then, etc.)
[Out of 27 translations, not one translates eis as causal (because of),
whereas 13 translate eis indicating purpose (so that, unto, into, etc.)!
The reason for this becomes clearer when we consider Greek...]
II. LEXICONS
A. THAYER...
1. Citing Ac 2:38 - eis aphesin hamartion, to obtain the
forgiveness of sins - Thayer, J. H. (1889).
2. A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: Being Grimm's
Wilke's Clavis Novi Testamenti. New York: Harper & Brothers, p.
94
B. ARNDT, DANKER, & BAUER...
1. to denote purpose in order to - for forgiveness of sins, so that
sins might be forgiven Mt 26:28; cp. Mk 1:4; Lk 3:3; Ac 2:38
- Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. (2000)
2. A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early
Christian literature (3rd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, p. 290
C. BALZ & SCHNEIDER...
1. to/for to indicate purpose... for the forgiveness of sins (Ac
2:38) - Balz, H. R., & Schneider, G. (1990-).
2. Exegetical dictionary of the New Testament. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, Vol 1, p.399
D. KITTEL, BROMILEY & FRIEDRICH...
1. John baptizes, and Jesus sheds His blood, for the forgiveness
of sins (Mk 1:4; Lk 3:3; Mt 26:28; cf. Ac 2:38) - G. Kittel, G.
W. Bromiley & G. Friedrich, Ed. (1964-)
2. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, Vol. 2, p. 429
E. ROBERTSON...
1. Unto the remission of your sins [eis aphesin tn hamartin hmn)
...In themselves the words can express aim or purpose...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. - Robertson, A. (1997). Word Pictures in the New
Testament. Oak Harbor
2. baptistheto eis aphesin ton hamartion (Ac. 2:38)...only the
context and the tenor of N. T. teaching can determine whether
'into,' 'unto' or merely 'in' or 'on' ('upon') is the right
translation, a task for the interpreter, not for the grammarian.
- Robertson, A. T. (1919). A Grammar of the Greek New Testament
in the Light of Historical Research. P. 592
3. As noted earlier, Robertson may have let his religious
affiliation influence his scholarship
F. MANTEY...
1. J. R. Mantey, Professor of New Testament, Northern Baptist
Theological Seminary
2. Mantey contended for the "causal" sense of eis in Ac 2:38,
though he classified that use of the preposition as a "remote
meaning." - From an article by Wayne Jackson
3. His discussion clearly indicated, however, that he yielded to
that view because of his conviction that, if baptism was "for
the purpose of the remission of sins," then salvation would be
of works, and not by faith (a false conclusion, please see below
~ MAC) H.E. Dana & J.R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek
New Testament, New York: Macmillan, 1955, 103-04). - ibid.
4. However, Daniel Wallace (associate professor of New Testament
Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary) wrote that in a
discussion between J. R. Mantey and Ralph Marcus: "Marcus ably
demonstrated that the linguistic evidence for a causal eis
fell short of proof." - Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond
the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan), p. 370
[Baptists frequently appeal to Robertson and Mantey as authorities on
this matter. Both were Baptists who may have let their theology trump
their scholarship. Beside lexicographers, consider a few...]
III. COMMENTARIES
A. LONGNECKER ON ACTS 2:38..
1. Peter calls on his hearers to "repent" (metanosate). This
word implies a complete change of heart and the confession of
sin. With this he couples the call to "be baptized" (baptistht),
thus linking both repentance and baptism with the forgiveness of
sins.
2. Gaebelein, F. E., Tenney, M. C., & Longenecker, R. N. (1981).
The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Volume 9: John and Acts. Grand
Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House
B. STOTT ON ACTS 2:38...
1. Peter replied that they must repent, completely changing their
mind about Jesus and their attitude to him, and be baptized in
his name...Then they would receive two free gifts of God--the
forgiveness of their sins (even of the sin of rejecting God's
Christ) and the gift of the Holy Spirit (to regenerate, indwell,
unite and transform them).
2. Stott, J. R. W. (1994). The Message of Acts: The Spirit, the
church & the world. The Bible Speaks Today. Leicester, England;
Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press
C. LARKIN ON ACTS 2:38...
1. By repentance and baptism we show that we have met the
conditions for receiving forgiveness of sins and the gift of the
Spirit.
2. Larkin, W. J., Jr. (1995). Vol. 5: Acts. The IVP New Testament
Commentary Series. Downers, IL: InterVarsity Press
D. NEWMAN & NIDA ON ACTS 2:38...
1. So that your sins will be forgiven (literally "into a
forgiveness of your sins") in the Greek may express either
purpose or result; but the large majority of translators
understand it as indicating purpose.
2. The phrase modifies both main verbs: turn away from your sins
and be baptized. The clause your sins will be forgiven may be
restructured in an active form as "God will forgive your sins."
3. Newman, B. M., & Nida, E. A. (1972). A handbook on the Acts of
the Apostles. UBS Handbook Series. New York: United Bible
Societies
E. MEYER ON ACTS 2:38...
1. eis denotes the object of the baptism, which is the remission
of the guilt contracted in the state before metanoia. Comp. Ac
22:16; 1Co 6:11
2. Meyer, H. A. W. (1877). Critical and Exegetical Handbook to
the Acts of the Apostles, Volume 1 (W. P. Dickson, Ed.) (P. J.
Gloag, Trans.). Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New
Testament. Edinburgh: T&T Clark.
[Note that these are not so-called "Church of Christ" scholars. Even so,
some contend (as did Robertson and Mantey) that if baptism was "for the
purpose of the remission of sins," then salvation would be of works, and
not by faith. This is a false conclusion! For consider what has been
said by these...]
IV. THEOLOGIANS
A. AUGUSTINE...
1. Referring to the efficacy of baptism, he wrote that "the
salvation of man is effected in baptism"; also, that a person
"is baptized for the express purpose of being with Christ."
- as quoted by Jack W. Cottrell, Baptism And The Remission of
Sins, College Press, 1990, p. 30
2. In regards to the necessity of baptism, he refers to the
"apostolic tradition, by which the Churches of Christ maintain
it to be an inherent principle, that without baptism...it is
impossible for any man to attain to salvation and everlasting
life." - ibid., p. 30
B. THOMAS AQUINAS...
1. "...Men are bound to that without which they cannot obtain
salvation. Now it is manifest that no one can obtain salvation
but through Christ..."
2. "But for this end is baptism conferred on a man, that being
regenerated thereby, he may be incorporated in Christ."
3. "Consequently it is manifest that all are bound to be baptized:
and that without baptism there is no salvation for men."
- ibid., p. 31
C. MARTIN LUTHER...
1. In answer to the question, "What gifts or benefits does Baptism
bestow?", Luther replied in his Small Catechism, "It effects
forgiveness of sins." - ibid., p. 32
2. He also wrote concerning the sinner: "Through Baptism he is
bathed in the blood of Christ and is cleansed from sins."
- ibid., p. 32
3. Again, he wrote: "To put it most simply, the power, effect,
benefit, fruit, and purpose of Baptism is to save." - ibid., p.
34
4. In his commentary on Ro 6:3, he wrote: "Baptism has been
instituted that it should lead us to the blessings (of this
death) and through such death to eternal life. Therefore it is
necessary that we should be baptized into Jesus Christ and His
death." - Commentary On Romans, Kregel Publications, p. 101
5. In his commentary on Ga 3:27, he wrote: "This is diligently
to be noted, because of the fond and fantastical spirits, who go
about to deface the majesty of baptism, and speak wickedly of
it. Paul, contrariwise, commendeth it, and setteth it forth with
honourable titles, calling it, 'the washing of regeneration, and
renewing of the Holy Ghost'. And here also he saith, that 'all
ye that are baptized into Christ, have put on Christ.' Wherefore
baptism is a thing of great force and efficacy." - Commentary On
Galatians, Kregel Publications, p.222
6. In response to those who would call this a kind of
works-salvation, he said "Yes, it is true that our works are of
no use for salvation. Baptism, however, is not our work but
God's." - as quoted by Jack W. Cottrell, Baptism And The
Remission of Sins, College Press, 1990, p. 33
D. BEASLEY-MURRAY...
1. G.R. Beasley-Murray, Principal of Spurgeon's College in London,
later Senior Professor at Southern Baptist Seminary in
Louisville, KY, wrote a modern classic, Baptism In The New
Testament.
2. He gives chapters which thoroughly discuss baptism in the
Gospels, in Acts, Paul's writings, and other apostolic writings
3. In his introduction, Beasley-Murray wrote:
a. "This book is intended to offer a Baptist contribution to
the discussions on baptism that are taking place throughout
the Christian world."
b. "But the indefinite article should be observed; the
impression must not be given that my interpretations are
characteristic of Baptist thought generally."
c. At most it can be claimed that they represent a trend gaining
momentum among Baptists in Europe."
d. "I have striven to interpret the evidence of the New
Testament as a Christian scholar, rather than as a member of
a particular Christian Confession." - G. R. Beasley-Murray,
Baptism In The New Testament, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co., 1962, pp. v-vi.
4. From his chapter on baptism in Acts, Beasley-Murray wrote:
a. "Consequently, baptism is regarded in Acts as the occasion
and means of receiving the blessings conferred by the Lord of
the Kingdom. Admittedly, this way of reading the evidence is
not characteristic of our thinking, but the intention of the
author is tolerably clear." - ibid. p. 102
b. "Whatever the relationship between baptism and the gift of
the Spirit elsewhere in Acts, there appears to be no doubt as
to the intention of Acts 2:38; the penitent believer baptized
in the name of Jesus Christ may expect to receive at once the
Holy Spirit, even as he is assured of the immediate
forgiveness of his sins." - ibid., p. 108
5. Some concluding statements were:
a. "In light of the foregoing exposition of the New Testament
representations of baptism, the idea that baptism is a purely
symbolic rite must be pronounced not alone unsatisfactory but
out of harmony with the New Testament itself. Admittedly,
such a judgment runs counter to the popular tradition of the
Denomination to which the writer belongs..."
b. "The extent and nature of the grace which the New Testament
writers declare to be present in baptism is astonishing for
any who come to the study freshly with an open mind."
c. "...the 'grace' available to man in baptism is said by the
New Testament writers to include the following elements:
1) forgiveness of sin, Ac 2.38 and cleansing from sins, Ac
22.16, 1Co 6.11;
2) union with Christ, Ga 3.27, and particularly union with
Him in his death and resurrection, Ro. 6.3ff, Col 2.11f,
with all that implies of release from sin's power, as well
as guilt, and the sharing of the risen life of the
Redeemer, Ro 6.1-11;
3) participation in Christ's sonship, Ga 3.26f;
4) consecration to God, 1Co 6.11, hence membership in the
Church, the Body of Christ, 1Co 12.13, Ga 3.27-29;
5) possession of the Spirit, Ac 2.38, 1Co 6.11, 12.13, and
therefore the new life in the Spirit, i.e., regeneration,
Tit 3.5, Jn 3.5;
6) grace to live according to the will of God, Ro 6.1ff,
Col 3.1ff;
7) deliverance from the evil powers that rule this world,
Col 1.13;
8) the inheritance of the Kingdom of God, Jn 3.5, and the
pledge of the resurrection of the body, Ep 1.3f, 4.30.
-- Ibid., pp. 263-264
[These theologians believed strongly in justification by grace through
faith, yet did not find that it precluded the role of baptism in
receiving the remission of sins. Clearly, there are strong reasons to
consider eis in Ac 2:38 to indicate purpose ("in order to"). But in
anticipation of some objections, allow me to share some...]
V. RELATED OBSERVATIONS
A. BAPTISM DOES NOT SAVE BECAUSE IT MERITS SALVATION...
1. Nearly everyone I talk to who takes issue with baptism being
necessary, or having any part of the gospel plan of salvation,
initially misunderstands this point
a. They assume that if baptism is necessary, one is saved by
meritorious works
b. They assume that if one is baptized for the remission of
sins, one has earned their salvation
2. But again they need to listen carefully to Martin Luther...
a. In response to those who would call this a kind of works-
salvation, he said "Yes, it is true that our works are of no
use for salvation."
b. Baptism, however, is not our work but God's." - as quoted
by Jack W. Cottrell, Baptism And The Remission of Sins,
College Press, 1990, p. 33
B. BAPTISM SAVES BECAUSE GOD IS AT WORK...
1. Note that Peter clearly says that "baptism doth also now save
us" (KJV) - 1Pe 3:21
2. But as observed by Luther, it is God who saves us in baptism:
a. He is the one at work in baptism - Col 2:11-13 (cf. "the
working of God")
b. Other than possessing faith in Christ and God, MAN IS PASSIVE
in baptism
1) In fact, baptism is a more passive act than "saying the
sinner's prayer"!
2) Like a patient submitting to the skill of a physician to
remove cancer
3) So we, seeking the removal of the cancer of sin, submit
to the Great Physician to cut away our sins by the blood
of Christ, which He does in baptism
c. It is God who makes us alive together with Christ, having
forgiven all trespasses - Col 2:13
3. As stated in ISBE: "Baptism does not produce salutary effects
~ex~opere~operato~, i.e. by the mere external performance of
the baptismal action. No instrument with which Divine grace
works does. Even the preaching of the gospel is void of saving
results if not 'mixed with faith' (He 4.2, AV)."
a. It is not the "act" of immersion that saves, though
salvation occurs at that time
b. It is God who saves in baptism, by virtue of grace, when one
believes in Christ!
c. But because God commands baptism, and saves us in baptism,
it is proper to say...
1) With Peter: "baptism doth also now save us" - 1Pe 3:21
2) With Jesus: "He who believes and is baptized shall be
saved..." - Mk 16:16
Before we close, let's return to our text and notice carefully...]
C. THE CONTEXT OF ACTS 2:38...
1. The Jews' question
a. They wanted to know what to do to remove their guilt - Ac
2:36-37
b. Any instruction by Peter would be understood by them in
this light, and must so be understood by us today
2. Peter's answer
a. He gave two commands: 1) repent and 2) be baptized - Ac 2:38
b. That the first imperative (repent) was second person plural,
and the second imperative (be baptized) was third person
plural, and the phrase (for the remission of sins) reverts
back to second person plural, is a distinction without a
difference
1) "The phrase (for the remission of sins, MAC) modifies both
main verbs: turn away from your sins and be baptized."
- Newman, B. M., & Nida, E. A. (1972). A handbook on the Acts
of the Apostles. UBS Handbook Series. New York: United
Bible Societies
2) "In my view, the phrase eis aphesin hamartion in Acts
2:38 applies in sense to both of the preceding verbs."
- Bruce Metzger, editor of the Textual Commentary on the
Greek New Testament, a companion volume to the United
Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.).
London; New York: United Bible Societies, and teacher at
Princeton Theological Seminary - Correspondence with David
Padfield
3) "Since the expression eis aphesin hamartion is a
prepositional phrase with no verbal endings or singular or
plural endings, I certainly agree that grammatically it
can go with both repentance and baptism. In fact, I would
think that it does go with both of them." - Arthur L.
Farstad, chairman of the New King James Executive Review
Committee and general editor of the NKJV New Testament
- ibid.
4) "Whenever two verbs are connected by kai (and) and then
followed by a modifier (such as a prepositional phrase, as
in Acts 2:38), it is grammatically possible that modifier
modifies both the verbs, or only the latter one...It does
not matter that, here in Acts 2:38, one of the verbs is
second person plural...and the other is third person
singular...They are both imperative, and the fact that
they are joined by kai ('and') is sufficient evidence that
the author may have regarded them as a single unit to
which his modifier applied." - John R. Werner,
International Consultant in Translation to the Wycliffe
Bible Translators. Also a consultant to Friberg and
Friberg with the Analytical Greek New Testament, and from
1962 to 1972 professor of Greek at Trinity Christian
College - ibid.
c. Since the conjunction kai "and" joins the two commands
together, what is said of one command applies to the other
1) If they were to baptized "because of" remission of sins...
2) ...then they were also to repent "because of" the
remission of sins!
d. This would present two problems
1) Where else are people told to repent "because" their
sins are already forgiven?
2) Peter would have failed to tell them what to do to
remove their guilt!
3. Luke's summary
a. Peter told them what to do repeatedly, and they responded
- Ac 2:40-41
b. "Be saved (save yourselves, ESV, NLT, NET) from this
perverse generation"
c. "Then those who gladly received his word were baptized"
-- They saved themselves by being baptized, and thus the
immediate context confirms baptism was "in order to" the
remission of sins, not "because of"!
CONCLUSION
1. Allow me to share these words that I believe summarizes both the
issue and the solution to properly understanding "baptism for the
remission of sins":
A number of commentators seek to diminish the force of the phrase
"for the forgiveness of sins" at this point, apparently seeking
to safeguard the doctrine of salvation by grace. They take the
preposition "for" (eis) to mean "because of" rather than "in
order to." Peter, they say, meant be aptized because of the
forgiveness of sins, implying that such forgiveness had already
been granted by the time baptism was administered.
This position disregards the very common use of eis in the New
Testament to mean "for the purpose of, in order to." In Matthew
26:28 where this exact phrase appears, Jesus says his blood is
poured out" for (eis) the forgiveness of sins. It would be absurd
to argue that the phrase means "because of" and that Jesus' blood
was poured out because sins had already been forgiven.
Beyond this, the command to be baptized is only one of the
imperatives Peter gave. "Be baptized" is joined to "repent" with
"and." Whatever Peter says about the forgiveness of sins follows
from both imperatives. Just as repentance is needed "for the
purpose of" the forgiveness of sins, so is baptism.
This position need not rob the plan of salvation of its basis
in the grace of God. Both imperatives expect action to be taken
on the part of the sinner. Yet Peter considered neither to be a
work which merits salvation, but merely the response of faith
dictated by the prophesy he had already cited--"everyone who
calls on the name of the Lord will be saved" (Acts 2:21).
- Gaertner, D. (1995). Acts. The College Press NIV Commentary.
Joplin, MO: College Press.
2. Salvation is truly by grace through faith, and not of works done to
earn or merit salvation...
a. It is not by faith alone, because we need the grace of God, the
blood of Christ, along with the washing of renewal and regeneration
of the Holy Spirit - cf. Tit 3:4-7
b. So when the penitent believer submits to the command of Christ to
be baptized, they can rest assured at that moment the blood of
Christ washes away all their sin! - cf. Ac 22:16
And so we say with Peter to all who are convicted of their sins, who seek
forgiveness by asking "What shall we do?":
"Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus
Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive
the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to
your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the
Lord our God calls to him." ~ Ac 2:38-29
Hopefully they will "save themselves" by gladly accepting the word of
Christ's apostle, by being baptized this very day...! - Ac 2:40-41
And where does tolerance of false doctrine fit in this?
First, FRiend, I’m not a Baptist.
Second, I am a seminary graduate.
Third, I disagree with your Church of Christ Minister, Mr. Copeland, whom you copy and paste.
It appears your confusion comes from mixing the role of the Holy Spirit at the moment of faith with the command of baptism using water as an outward sign... and failing to divide the word of truth between Christ’s ministry to Israel from Christian Baptism.
Perhaps you are Catholic or one of its offshoots and you must believe this to remains faithful to your magisterium. Or maybe you are a wayward Baptist. OR maybe something else.
In any case, in this instance, you are putting forth a wrong position.
I wish you the best.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.