Sorry, an Acts 2:38 thread.

[sandy whitelinger]

I have posted these points on a number of forums and rarely seem to get a response on them. I'd like to give them their own thread and see what others may have to say. These are not the typical arguments like eis is always forward looking, although I'm seeing growing evidence for that, and the ones that says repent is in included in the "for" forgiveness of sins, although that's a rock solid argument in and of itself. These are inconsistencies or clashes that I've seen that are more subtle, yet just as disqualifying to the because of argument.

For those who believe for in Acts 2:38 means because of

Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ because of the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Then it runs into the following problems.

1. If it's because of, he's telling them to get baptized because of their forgiveness of sins, without them knowing first that their sins were forgiven.

2. If it's because of he's telling them to get baptized because of the forgiveness of their sins. What does one have to do with another? He puts the two together without connecting them in any way or explaining what one has to do with the other. For the first time that baptism is ever mentioned in history, it would leave them in the dark without saying the relationship between the two.
Analogy - "Sit in the other chair, because of your raise?"
... Huh?, why? What does having a raise have to do with where I sit?

... And wait, I got a raise?

Now people may give all sorts of explanations why Peter told them to get baptized in relation to their forgiveness (such as Peter consequently told them to do that as a public declaration of their faith), but Peter didn't give any explanation whatsoever! He left them completely in the dark.
Telling them to get baptized forward looking "into" or "in order to receive" forgiveness of sins fits completely within what he stated.

3. Why bring up baptism into a forgiveness of sin discussion in the first place if it doesn't belong. People who don't believe baptism is involved in getting saved don't bring it up. They say things like "Follow me in prayer", "Accept Jesus as personal savior" and all that. They never put baptism & forgiveness of sins in the same sentence unless it's to emphasize that they're not connected. Peter did included it, and didn't give any qualifier.

4. Peter took what Jesus said in Mark 16:16 and turned that into Acts 2:38-39.

5. Peter said “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit...." to a group of Jews who were used to the mikveh, which was water immersion many did obsessively to be cleansed. Telling them to be baptized in order to receive forgiveness of sins would be accepted right away. Telling them to be baptized because of forgiveness of sins would make no sense to them.

6. Comparing all eis instances together in scriptures that relate to being saved/forgiven shows a trend. ALL such scriptures always use eis in the forward sense, like Acts 3:19 and Romans 10:10. Relevant verses such as these give context to Acts 2:38. And since eis in relevant salvation verses are all forward looking, then it's fitting that Acts 2:38 is forward looking looking as well.

7. There's more wiggle room to argue For/eis in English than there is in Spanish. In English, for could mean either) forward-looking, (as in into or in order to receive) or backward-looking (as in because of, or in view of). In Spanish you don't have that, you have to choose between the words "por" (backward looking for) and "para" (forward looking for). I looked up 11 translations in spanish and 10 of those used para. The eleventh didn't use either por or para, but worded it as if it is para, such as "be baptized in order to receive". In Acts 2:38 Eis is overwhelmingly understood as "in order to receive".

8. In English, only a few obscure translations like the Renaissance and Weymouth Bibles translate it as because of. The overwhelming majority translate it as for.

9. Peter stated both Acts 2:38 and 1 Peter 3:21 "baptism that now saves you also". I understand all the arguments against 1st Peter 3: 21. My point is this, if a person is misunderstood once, it's easier to explain it away as what he said is not actually what he meant as in Acts 2:38. If a person says something twice, it's harder to explain that both times he didn't mean what he said.

Feel free to address any or all the points.

The floor is open. Thank you.

This is much ado about nothing. Jesus said to get your arse baptized. Put your butt in the water and say Hallelujah when you come up.

All confusion is solved this way.

 

[Grandliseur]

get baptized because of the forgiveness of their sins. What does one have to do with another?

It's rather simple, really.
As Paul shows, the nation of Israel was also baptized so as to enter the covenant of blood, the Mosaic Law.

1 Corinthians 10:1 FOR I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea. 2 And all in Moses were baptized, in the cloud, and in the sea: 3 And did all eat the same spiritual food, 4 And all drank the same spiritual drink; (and they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ.)​

When Jesus came, he came with a better covenant of blood, this was the New Covenant:

Matt 26: 28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins.​

The New Covenant, the Covenant of Faith which destroyed the wall between the two peoples and made all Jews and Gentiles who got baptized and entered into this New Covenant by means of baptism were then accorded the forgiveness of sins accorded by Christ's superior blood who ransoms us once and for all, unless we commit the unforgivable sin, the sin to death.

​

 

[e.r.m.]

It's rather simple, really.
As Paul shows, the nation of Israel was also baptized so as to enter the covenant of blood, the Mosaic Law.

1 Corinthians 10:1 FOR I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea. 2 And all in Moses were baptized, in the cloud, and in the sea: 3 And did all eat the same spiritual food, 4 And all drank the same spiritual drink; (and they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ.)​

When Jesus came, he came with a better covenant of blood, this was the New Covenant:

Matt 26: 28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins.​

The New Covenant, the Covenant of Faith which destroyed the wall between the two peoples and made all Jews and Gentiles who got baptized and entered into this New Covenant by means of baptism were then accorded the forgiveness of sins accorded by Christ's superior blood who ransoms us once and for all, unless we commit the unforgivable sin, the sin to death.

Thank you. I was hoping there would be evangelicals here too who'd share their views.

 

[Grandliseur]

I have posted these points on a number of forums and rarely seem to get a response on them. I'd like to give them their own thread and see what others may have to say. These are not the typical arguments like eis is always forward looking, although I'm seeing growing evidence for that, and the ones that says repent is in included in the "for" forgiveness of sins, although that's a rock solid argument in and of itself. These are inconsistencies or clashes that I've seen that are more subtle, yet just as disqualifying to the because of argument.

For those who believe for in Acts 2:38 means because of

Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ because of the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Then it runs into the following problems.

1. If it's because of, he's telling them to get baptized because of their forgiveness of sins, without them knowing first that their sins were forgiven.

2. If it's because of he's telling them to get baptized because of the forgiveness of their sins. What does one have to do with another? He puts the two together without connecting them in any way or explaining what one has to do with the other. For the first time that baptism is ever mentioned in history, it would leave them in the dark without saying the relationship between the two.
Analogy - "Sit in the other chair, because of your raise?"
... Huh?, why? What does having a raise have to do with where I sit?

... And wait, I got a raise?

Now people may give all sorts of explanations why Peter told them to get baptized in relation to their forgiveness (such as Peter consequently told them to do that as a public declaration of their faith), but Peter didn't give any explanation whatsoever! He left them completely in the dark.
Telling them to get baptized forward looking "into" or "in order to receive" forgiveness of sins fits completely within what he stated.

3. Why bring up baptism into a forgiveness of sin discussion in the first place if it doesn't belong. People who don't believe baptism is involved in getting saved don't bring it up. They say things like "Follow me in prayer", "Accept Jesus as personal savior" and all that. They never put baptism & forgiveness of sins in the same sentence unless it's to emphasize that they're not connected. Peter did included it, and didn't give any qualifier.

4. Peter took what Jesus said in Mark 16:16 and turned that into Acts 2:38-39.

5. Peter said “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit...." to a group of Jews who were used to the mikveh, which was water immersion many did obsessively to be cleansed. Telling them to be baptized in order to receive forgiveness of sins would be accepted right away. Telling them to be baptized because of forgiveness of sins would make no sense to them.

6. Comparing all eis instances together in scriptures that relate to being saved/forgiven shows a trend. ALL such scriptures always use eis in the forward sense, like Acts 3:19 and Romans 10:10. Relevant verses such as these give context to Acts 2:38. And since eis in relevant salvation verses are all forward looking, then it's fitting that Acts 2:38 is forward looking looking as well.

7. There's more wiggle room to argue For/eis in English than there is in Spanish. In English, for could mean either) forward-looking, (as in into or in order to receive) or backward-looking (as in because of, or in view of). In Spanish you don't have that, you have to choose between the words "por" (backward looking for) and "para" (forward looking for). I looked up 11 translations in spanish and 10 of those used para. The eleventh didn't use either por or para, but worded it as if it is para, such as "be baptized in order to receive". In Acts 2:38 Eis is overwhelmingly understood as "in order to receive".

8. In English, only a few obscure translations like the Renaissance and Weymouth Bibles translate it as because of. The overwhelming majority translate it as for.

9. Peter stated both Acts 2:38 and 1 Peter 3:21 "baptism that now saves you also". I understand all the arguments against 1st Peter 3: 21. My point is this, if a person is misunderstood once, it's easier to explain it away as what he said is not actually what he meant as in Acts 2:38. If a person says something twice, it's harder to explain that both times he didn't mean what he said.

Feel free to address any or all the points.

The floor is open. Thank you.

Just for emphasis!
Forgiveness of sin is not just about blood. It is about a contract, a covenant of blood. In both cases of covenants, the Mosaic Law Covenant and the New Covenant, it was about a contract, a covenant that was validated by the spilling of blood. In the latter case, the blood spilled only needed to be spilled once, and has an everlasting effect, contract, though it is possible to become damned.

 

[e.r.m.]

Just for emphasis!
Forgiveness of sin is not just about blood. It is about a contract, a covenant of blood. In both cases of covenants, the Mosaic Law Covenant and the New Covenant, it was about a contract, a covenant that was validated by the spilling of blood. In the latter case, the blood spilled only needed to be spilled once, and has an everlasting effect, contract, though it is possible to become damned.

Thank you.

 

[CohenDavidson]

I have posted these points on a number of forums and rarely seem to get a response on them. I'd like to give them their own thread and see what others may have to say. These are not the typical arguments like eis is always forward looking, although I'm seeing growing evidence for that, and the ones that says repent is in included in the "for" forgiveness of sins, although that's a rock solid argument in and of itself. These are inconsistencies or clashes that I've seen that are more subtle, yet just as disqualifying to the because of argument.

For those who believe for in Acts 2:38 means because of

Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ because of the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Then it runs into the following problems.

1. If it's because of, he's telling them to get baptized because of their forgiveness of sins, without them knowing first that their sins were forgiven.

2. If it's because of he's telling them to get baptized because of the forgiveness of their sins. What does one have to do with another? He puts the two together without connecting them in any way or explaining what one has to do with the other. For the first time that baptism is ever mentioned in history, it would leave them in the dark without saying the relationship between the two.
Analogy - "Sit in the other chair, because of your raise?"
... Huh?, why? What does having a raise have to do with where I sit?

... And wait, I got a raise?

Now people may give all sorts of explanations why Peter told them to get baptized in relation to their forgiveness (such as Peter consequently told them to do that as a public declaration of their faith), but Peter didn't give any explanation whatsoever! He left them completely in the dark.
Telling them to get baptized forward looking "into" or "in order to receive" forgiveness of sins fits completely within what he stated.

3. Why bring up baptism into a forgiveness of sin discussion in the first place if it doesn't belong. People who don't believe baptism is involved in getting saved don't bring it up. They say things like "Follow me in prayer", "Accept Jesus as personal savior" and all that. They never put baptism & forgiveness of sins in the same sentence unless it's to emphasize that they're not connected. Peter did included it, and didn't give any qualifier.

4. Peter took what Jesus said in Mark 16:16 and turned that into Acts 2:38-39.

5. Peter said “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit...." to a group of Jews who were used to the mikveh, which was water immersion many did obsessively to be cleansed. Telling them to be baptized in order to receive forgiveness of sins would be accepted right away. Telling them to be baptized because of forgiveness of sins would make no sense to them.

6. Comparing all eis instances together in scriptures that relate to being saved/forgiven shows a trend. ALL such scriptures always use eis in the forward sense, like Acts 3:19 and Romans 10:10. Relevant verses such as these give context to Acts 2:38. And since eis in relevant salvation verses are all forward looking, then it's fitting that Acts 2:38 is forward looking looking as well.

7. There's more wiggle room to argue For/eis in English than there is in Spanish. In English, for could mean either) forward-looking, (as in into or in order to receive) or backward-looking (as in because of, or in view of). In Spanish you don't have that, you have to choose between the words "por" (backward looking for) and "para" (forward looking for). I looked up 11 translations in spanish and 10 of those used para. The eleventh didn't use either por or para, but worded it as if it is para, such as "be baptized in order to receive". In Acts 2:38 Eis is overwhelmingly understood as "in order to receive".

8. In English, only a few obscure translations like the Renaissance and Weymouth Bibles translate it as because of. The overwhelming majority translate it as for.

9. Peter stated both Acts 2:38 and 1 Peter 3:21 "baptism that now saves you also". I understand all the arguments against 1st Peter 3: 21. My point is this, if a person is misunderstood once, it's easier to explain it away as what he said is not actually what he meant as in Acts 2:38. If a person says something twice, it's harder to explain that both times he didn't mean what he said.

Feel free to address any or all the points.

The floor is open. Thank you.

Considering the numerous examples of baptism in the Bible being the point that sins are forgiven, it is clear that baptism is what causes one to be forgiven. Its the point where sin is washed and the point where one is added to Christ's church. Acts 2:38-47

 

[Muffled]

What points? I believe it ought to be understood that Peter is telling them that repentance is necessary for the forgiveness of sins. That makes sense. God isn't going to forgive someone who doesn't believe he has done anything wrong and if he does isn't willing to turn away from his sin.

 

[Muffled]

Thank you. Do you believe then, since Acts 10:47-48 establishes that baptism in Jesus name is in water, that Peter was saying to repent and be baptized in water in Jesus's name in order to receive forgiveness of sins? If not why not? Thank you.

I believe I don't believe that Baptism is operative but is simply the action that a repentant person should take other than the fact that in this case baptism is also a form of receiving Jesus as Lord and Savior since it is done in His name. Baptism without repentance or belief in Jesus is totally not effective.

 

[CohenDavidson]

What points? I believe it ought to be understood that Peter is telling them that repentance is necessary for the forgiveness of sins. That makes sense. God isn't going to forgive someone who doesn't believe he has done anything wrong and if he does isn't willing to turn away from his sin.

I agree, John 3:18 tells us if we don't believe then we will never have hope of forgiveness because belief is one of the first step, and it is true that if one does not turn, or repent form their sins, then they will never be forgiven Acts 17:30. The point of baptism, the immersion is when someone is saves 1 Peter 3:21

 

[e.r.m.]

What points? I believe it ought to be understood that Peter is telling them that repentance is necessary for the forgiveness of sins. That makes sense. God isn't going to forgive someone who doesn't believe he has done anything wrong and if he does isn't willing to turn away from his sin.

I agree.

 

[e.r.m.]

I agree, John 3:18 tells us if we don't believe then we will never have hope of forgiveness because belief is one of the first step, and it is true that if one does not turn, or repent form their sins, then they will never be forgiven Acts 17:30. The point of baptism, the immersion is when someone is saves 1 Peter 3:21

Agreed.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Some translations render certain phrases badly....that's why it's good to examine many, and their context, to get a better idea of the writer's intent.

In this regard, BibleHub is great:
Acts 2:38

How do you determine what's inspired by God and what's not?

It's coming across as one verse not being inspired and the other one is. Much like the Bible itself is written as a work inspired by God.

 

[e.r.m.]

How do you determine what's inspired by God and what's not?

It's coming across as one verse not being inspired and the other one is. Much like the Bible itself is written as a work inspired by God.

It was originally written in Greek. Going back to a good Greek interlinear Bible I think helps even better. It's all inspired, but some translations convey some verses better than other translations.

 

[Muffled]

It was originally written in Greek. Going back to a good Greek interlinear Bible I think helps even better. It's all inspired, but some translations convey some verses better than other translations.

I believe I agree and the Lord has given me the NAS for study purposes.

 

[e.r.m.]

I believe I agree and the Lord has given me the NAS for study purposes.

What is the NAS?

 

[Wandering Monk]

Jesus, I wish people would learn the art of brevity.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I should stay out of this, not being a Christian, but it really rankles me when I see someone deliberately twisting language to try and make it say something other than what it is saying, simply because they don't like what it's actually saying.

I give you an F on your essay, and I suggest that you accept life as it is, with all its bummers.

 

[Muffled]

What is the NAS?

I believe that is the abbreviation for the New American Standard.

 

[e.r.m.]

I believe that is the abbreviation for the New American Standard.

Ty.

 

[e.r.m.]

It's rather simple, really.
As Paul shows, the nation of Israel was also baptized so as to enter the covenant of blood, the Mosaic Law.

1 Corinthians 10:1 FOR I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea. 2 And all in Moses were baptized, in the cloud, and in the sea: 3 And did all eat the same spiritual food, 4 And all drank the same spiritual drink; (and they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ.)​

When Jesus came, he came with a better covenant of blood, this was the New Covenant:

Matt 26: 28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins.​

The New Covenant, the Covenant of Faith which destroyed the wall between the two peoples and made all Jews and Gentiles who got baptized and entered into this New Covenant by means of baptism were then accorded the forgiveness of sins accorded by Christ's superior blood who ransoms us once and for all, unless we commit the unforgivable sin, the sin to death.

​

That would describe more get baptized into forgiveness of sins (forward looking), not because of (after the fact and looking backward). I agree with your description on the purpose of baptism though. Just saying that those who say Acts 2:38 is get baptized because of forgiveness of your sins doesn't explain to the people in the passage how the two are connected.