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.
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.
If baptismal regeneration is a “false gospel”, that would mean every Christian who lived from the first century until the 16th century had a false gospel, including the bishops in the 4th century who fixed the 27 book NT canon.
Isn’t it strange the the Apostles traveled all over the known world teaching and baptizing and their disciples and disciples of their disciples all believed in baptismal regeneration. How did that happen? I thought the Holy Spirit was promised to the Church to lead it to all truth? I thought the gates of hell wouldn’t prevail against the Church?
Now, let’s consider for a minute that historical orthodox Christian belief is true and not a false gospel.
Wouldn’t that mean those that deny baptismal regeneration have the false gospel?
I will go with what the Bible says and Christians have always believed over some 16th century tradition of men any day.