The attempts to debunk the gospel of Christ as heresy are numerous. Though great in number, such opposition to the Gospel cannot stand to the power of God unto salvation, the gospel (Rom 1:16; 1 Cor 15:1–4). One such false rebuttal against the Gospel is to reject being saved by grace and raised with Christ from being buried with Christ in baptism (Eph 2:4–6; Col 2:12–13).
Take for example the position of Kirk Cameron with his associate Ray Comfort in their affirmation that baptism in the name of Jesus Christ is not “into” and to receive the forgiveness of sins, but it is to be done “because of” the forgiveness of sins. After perusing through one of Cameron and Comfort’s books at a bookstore, I found a misleading error. I was surprised since I have already read the affirmation of Cameron and Comfort for the necessity of water baptism and its necessity “for the remission of sins” on their website Living Waters. However, this book framed Acts 2:38 to exclude forgiveness of sins. In Acts 2:38, Peter instructs baptism in the name of Jesus Christ “for the remission of sins.” Likewise, Paul taught the same in Colossians 2:12–13. The false teaching promotes “because of the remission of sins” rather than “to receive the forgiveness of sins” or in an even better translation “into forgiveness of sins.”
I recently came across the blog, “Baptist College Student,” affirming that “Belief alone results in everlasting life” in which the writer has neglected James 2:24, “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” However, many people claim that one is saved and justified by faith alone to mean that the faithful do not need to work. Christians are saved and raised as God’s workmanship (Eph 2:10). With all of this said, there are some essential things that everyone should know about baptism and Acts 2:38. The faithful do good works. Furthermore, the Bible never refers to baptism as a work.
For the Remission of Sins
The phrase “for the forgiveness of sins” in Acts 2:38 is significant. The issue has to do with the definition of the word “for” from the Greek word eis meaning “into,” which some say could be translated “because of” rather than “for” or “into.” The exact phrase in Greek behind the translation “for forgiveness of sins” is in three other scriptures. Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3 present that John the Baptist’s baptism was “of repentance for forgiveness of sins.” The same interpretation for Acts 2:38‘s baptism in Jesus’s name would be the same for John’s baptism of repentance. Both would be for the forgiveness of sins in the same way. The only other passage with this exact phrase is Matthew 26:28. In the context of the Lord’s Supper, Christ stated, “for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.” Jesus’s blood washes and justifies believers according to the Scriptures (Acts 20:28; Rom 3:25, 5:9; Eph 1:7, 2:13; Col 1:20; Heb 9; 13:12; 1 John 1:7; Rev 1:5; 7:14). This verse resolves this whole controversy. Jesus’s blood was not “because of” forgiveness of sins, but His blood was “for” or “into” the forgiveness of sins.
In fact, there are 1,695 occurrences of eis in the Greek New Testament and not one usage means “because of.” On top of this, there are some other uses of eis around Acts 2:38 that show that the word means “into.” After doing a simple word-study and going through the list of words, the definition of the word is abundantly clear. One can fill in “because of” instead of “for” or “into” to see that “because of” will not work. As one can note in the following the list, the Greek eis refers to persons entering a place so that using the phrase “because of” is an absurdity. The word eis refers to changing into something or speaking to someone, and again translating eis as “because of” is fallacious.
Here is a list of occurrences of the word around Acts 2:38 from Acts chapters 1–3:
*Acts 1:10, “And while they were looking steadfastly into [not because of] heaven as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;”
*Acts 1:11, “who also said, You men of Galilee, why are you stand looking into heaven? this Jesus, who was received up from you into heaven shall so come in like manner as you beheld him going into heaven.”
*Acts 1:12, “Then returned they into [not because of] Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near unto Jerusalem, a Sabbath day’s journey off.”
*Acts 1:13, “And when they were come in, they went up into the upper room, where they were abiding; both Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon the Zealot, and Judas the son of James.”
*Acts 1:25, “to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas fell away, that he might go into his own place.”
*Acts 2:20, “The sun shall be turned into darkness, And the moon into blood, Before the day of the Lord come, That great and notable day.”
*Acts 2:22, “You men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God into you by mighty works and wonders and signs which God did by him in the midst of you, even as you yourselves know;”
*Acts 2:25, “For David said into [not because of] him, I beheld the Lord always before my face; For he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved:”
*Acts 2:27, “Because you will not leave my soul into Hades, Neither will you give your Holy One to see corruption.”
*Acts 2:31, “he foreseeing this spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that neither was He left into [not because of] Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption.”
*Acts 2:34, “For David ascended not into the heavens: but he says himself, ‘The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit you on my right hand,'”
*Acts 2:39, “For to you is the promise, and to your children, and to all that are into afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call to him.”
*Acts 3:1, “Now Peter and John were going up into the temple at the hour of prayer, being the ninth hour.”
*Acts 3:2, “And a certain man that was lame from his mother’s womb was carried, whom they laid daily at the door of the temple which is called Beautiful, to ask alms of them that entered into the temple;”
*Acts 3:3, “who seeing Peter and John about to go into the temple, asked to receive an alms.”
*Acts 3:4, “And Peter, fastening his eyes into him, with John, said, ‘Look on us.'”
*Acts 3:8, “And leaping up, he stood, and began to walk; and he entered with them unto the temple, walking, and leaping, and praising God.”
The truth is that when a believer repents and is baptized, that believer is baptized into the forgiveness of sins. Acts 2:38 states,
“And Peter said to them, ‘Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ into the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit’.”
Baptism in Jesus’s Name
The command is clearly for every one to be baptized “in the name of Jesus Christ,” which is not Holy Spirit baptism (Acts 8:14–16). Baptism in the name of Jesus Christ is water baptism according to Peter in Acts 10:47–48 where he speaks, “‘Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?’ And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days.” Baptism in Jesus’s name is the baptism that Jesus commanded in the Great Commission in Matthew 28:19, which says, “While going, make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” This is the same baptism that Christ established in His resurrection when Jesus said in Mark 16:16, “Whoever believes and is baptized shall be saved.” This baptism is the moment that Christ saves. This is the “one baptism” of that Paul noted in Ephesians 4:5. This baptism is the “washing of water” in Ephesians 5:26 by which Christ sanctified and cleansed the church. This washing is that of Titus 3:5 “He saved us…by the washing of regeneration…” This regeneration and rebirth that is “through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Pet 1:3). For “baptism now saves us” “through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Pet 3:21). Baptism is to be born again of water as in John 3:3 and 5,
"Jesus answered him, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God'... Jesus answered, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.'"
This is why the apostle Paul was told to “Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord” in Acts 22:16. Sins are forgiven when one has buried old person of sin and has been raised with Christ. The Apostle revealed in Colossians 2:12–13,
"Buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses,"
The Moment of Salvation
When is a believer saved? When someone is humble enough to accept the grace of Christ and not his own works, and humble oneself to Christ’s command to be baptized. Baptism is of faith, “For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Gal 3:26–27). With baptism being commanded, the Scriptures also teach that obedience is necessary for salvation. The writer revealed in Hebrews 5:9, “And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him,” and Jesus said in Matthew 7:21, “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.”
God’s Work of Salvation through Baptism
Who or what does the saving by baptism in Titus 3:5 and Ephesians 5:26? Being submerged in water alone does not regenerates, but the Spirit regenerates and Christ cleanses repentant believers at baptism. Christ regenerates the believer who is born of Christ being born of the water and the Spirit. Christ is the One who saves and “not because of works done by us in righteousness” according to Titus 3:5, but “being justified by His grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life” in Titus 3:7. Baptism is not “works-salvation” to be saved by Christ via baptism in His name. The one baptized does not even baptize oneself, so it is not one’s own working. Baptism in Jesus’s name is not the effort of any person to save oneself by works as so many would like to attach to Christ’s baptism.
Because “when we were dead in trespasses, [God] made us alive together with Christ, by grace you have been saved, and raised us up together,” this does not deny or reject the truth that “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; salvation is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast” (Eph 2:4–7, 8–9).
Joe,
My answer is Christ’s words, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved, but he who does not believe will be condemned.” I understand your belief but I cannot accept it in order “to observe all things”.
May God bless us both in our studies of His Word.
Erik, I appreciate you looking at my document on baptism but I just wanted to make a few comments about what you said.
Acts 2:38—I’m not going to go the Greek or Hebrew to support my argument because none of us are Greek or Hebrew scholars. In fact people dont even speak the same Greek they did when this was originally written so there is no sense in repeating an argument we’ve heard from somebody else when we don’t know more than a few memorized words in those languages. Let’s look at the English.
The word for can either mean “to get” or “because of”. This is undeniable. A person goes to trial for murder. A person takes a tylenol for a headache. A person has plastic surgery for their skin. Those are all examples where for means “because of”. For can also mean “to get” as well.
People constantly say there were not commas in the “originals”. It doesnt matter if the Greek had commas in it or not. The English language is set up differently which requires commas to accurately translate the “originals”. I will give an example sentence that is similar in structure to Acts 2:38.
Michael Jordan, who won 6 NBA title for the Chicago Bulls, was the greatest basketball player of all time. In this sentence we can take out the part in between the commas and have a completely coherent sentence. Michael Jordan was the greatest basketball player of all time.
Then Peter said unto them, 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. Repent and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. With repentance comes true saving faith and with true saving faith their is always repentance. They are like a Chinese puzzle. WHen a person gets saved the receive the Holy GHost.
The commas can be treated as parenthesis as I mentioned earlier without changing the meaning of the passage. The part in the middle can be taken out & we still have a coherent sentence as I just showed. I’ve already showed the for means either “because of” or “to get”.
Peter tells them to repent and they will receive the Holy Ghost. If a person already has the Holy Ghost then their sins are already forgiven. Therefore from the context be baptized for the remission of sins means “because of” and not “to get”.
“however it is grammatically incorrect to have a comma after “baptize,” so what is he talking about?” Im not sure what you meant by this Eric. THe NIV has a comma after baptize which is gramatically incorrect and I fully agree with you. A lot of versions have a comma after baptize and yes indeed they are gramatically incorrect. So if thats what you meant then I guess we agree on that.
“And then he goes on to say that the word “for” in Acts 2:38 can be translated as “because of,” however “eis” can NOT be translated as “because of.” At this point he is only making things up to make himself feel right, I guess?” I hate having to defend myself against things I never said but that seems to always happen when posting Bible documents online. I never said “eis” can NOT be translated as “because of”. I never went to the Greek one time. I never even said the word “eis”. So unless you were confused then actually you are the one making things up. If what I wrote about baptism is so ignorant then there is no need to say I said things I never did. I would look foolish enough with things I actually said. http://mstucky253.wordpress.com/ That is a link to my wordpress where I recently wrote about baptism in a 14 page document on 4 different sections on 1. Does baptism save? 2. By what method should we baptize? 3. WHen should people be baptized? & 4. In whose name should we baptize? I am open to what people have to say so if anyone wants to read it and post comments then I welcome that & appreciate you taking the tiem to see what I wrote about.
“I skimmed over the rest of it and it looked pretty laughable to me. Baptists can be so crazy at times. I wish I had time to refute the rest of it :(” If you want to try to refute anything I talked about then you can post on my blog on baptism. I found it funny one Church of Christ pastor who was on my old blog praised my sections on In Whose name should we Baptize, When should people be baptized, and by what method we should be baptized. He told me I put a lot of time, thought, and effort into it. He also said I used very good logic. Of the 4 sections I talked about he agreed with 3 of them but obviously we disagreed on whether or not baptism is part of salvation as I think its 100% Jesus as opposed to Jesus + baptism. Eric, Im guessing you would feel the same way but Im open to anyone looking at it even if they disagree with certain parts. SOmetimes you have to eat the meat and spit out the bones. Ive learned a lot from different pastors but I’ve always been weary of the bones. Here is the link for anybody interested http://mstucky253.wordpress.com/
“You’ve been reading too much of Spurgeon if you think that anyone believes that one must be be baptized to believe.”
This is precicley my point. One does not have to be baptized in order to believe. and the bible says, ““He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life.” Yet you add condition of works such as baptism to salvation. So either one must be baptized in order to beleive OR baptism is not a requirement for salvation.
We have been talking in circles for quite some time, and all you have done is try to rebut the verses ive quoted by giving your faulty interpretations. I’ve explained why each one has been wrong but you keep running down another rabbit trail each time you come to a corner on one of them; this is a waste of both of our time.
I would be satisfied if you could just answer the above question: If one does not need to be baptized to believe and “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life” then how do you get baptism as a requirement for salvation in light of this passage?
Joe,
As for Matthew 26:28, I don’t believe that a cup was poured out for my sins just the blood of Christ. Be careful there. The renowned Baptist scholar, A.T. Robinson stated, “‘The purpose of the shedding of his blood of the New Covenant was precisely to remove (forgive) sins’ (Word Pictures in the New Testament, Nashville: Broadman, 1930, Vol. I, p. 210; emp. WJ).” This source and the following were not found by my independent research but that of Wayne Jackson (christiancourier.com).
As for the definition of “eis” it is not “with reference to”. Anyone can look at the post and see that such does not plug in. Jackson shows that eis is “‘an indicator of direction toward a goal, not as an indicator of location without direction’ (Balz & Schneider, Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978, Vol. I, p. 398).” “Robinson noted that the baptism/eis connection, as used in Acts 2:38, marked ‘the object and effect of the rite of baptism; chiefly with eis c. acc. to baptize or be baptized into anything’ (1855, 118). J.H. Thayer said that the significance of eis in Acts 2:38 is ‘to obtain the forgiveness of sins’ (1958, 94). Arndt and Gingrich affirmed that eis denoted ‘purpose, in order to . . . for forgiveness of sins, so that sins might be forgiven’ (1967, 228).'” Also, “Professor Daniel Wallace is associated with the Dallas Theological Seminary in Texas. From a personal theological perspective, he does not believe that baptism is required as a condition for the remission of sins. This is important to keep in mind. Dr. Wallace is the author of the highly acclaimed work, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. Therein he has a discussion of the so-called causal use of eis. He contends that studies have shown that ‘the linguistic evidence for a causal eis’ falls short of proof. He stingingly calls this misguided twisting of the preposition an ‘ingenious solution’ that ‘lacks conviction’ (1996, 370-371)…The celebrated Baptist scholar, H.B. Hackett, rendered the Greek phrase, eis aphesin hamartion in Acts 2:38, as ‘in order to the forgiveness of sins,’ and referenced Matthew 26:28 and Luke 3:3 as parallel texts (1879, 54).” Apparently, Baptist and other scholars are against your interpretation too.
As for your interpretation of Acts, everyone would have to have spiritual gifts and have the baptism of the Holy Spirit to be saved. Is this what you believe? Cornelius’ household “have received the Holy Ghost as well as we”. Who is the “we”? Peter said about Cornelius’ household receiving the Spirit that, “And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them, as on us at the beginning” (Acts 11:15). Peter is referring to the Apostles on the day of Pentecost. As we see here, they received the Spirit in a different way than all Christians do, since we must obey God to receive the Spirit (Acts 5:32). They received the supernatural spiritual gifts by the baptism of the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:5, 10:44-46). This is not the receiving of the Spirit for a promise of eternal life (Rom. 8, Gal. 3:2-3), but the baptism of the Holy Spirit also called “the gift of the Holy Spirit”, which was poured out only one other time in Acts 2. We also know that there is only one baptism for all Christians (Eph. 4:5, 5:26) and this was not it. This is why Peter said “the Holy Spirit fell on them, as on us at the beginning”. This was only the 2nd time that Holy Spirit baptism happened while thousands before were already saved who received the Spirit in obedience (Acts 5:32). On top of this, they were still baptized in water immediately in Jesus name. Why? I know why. Do you?
As I’ve affirmed by Scripture from the beginning, no one will be saved by their own works or the works of the Law of Moses, but they are saved in obedience to the works of God such as faith, confessing Jesus, repentance, and baptism in Christ’s name.
You’ve been reading too much of Spurgeon if you think that anyone believes that one must be be baptized to believe.
God bless.
“Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.” Notice now that “repent” is for salvation, and “be baptized” is pointing to, or with reference to that salvation. A study of the Greek shows that the word “for” there is really a translation of the little Greek word eis which means “with reference to.” So it is not a matter of being baptized to get remission of sins. It is being baptized because of, or pointing to, or with reference to the remission of sins you got when you repented. Baptism does not save anybody. It is a good testimony you have been saved, if you have. Then read the rest of the verse. “And ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” Notice, one repents and is saved. Then the baptism means a laying of one’s self on the altar, a heart obedience to the commands of God (WORK, not part of salvation), a setting out to live the surrendered and crucified life.
IF “in order to get” was the meaning of the word we would have a problem with receiving the Holy Ghost. If we are baptized “in order to get” remission of sins in this verse we also must be baptized to get the Holy Ghost. However, this is clearly not the case. We Read later in acts that Peter said:
Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? ACTS 10:47
Also Paul asks in Galations:
This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of
faith? Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? GAL 3:2-3
So we read that without question people in acts have received the Holy Ghost without baptism, so one does not need to be baptized “in order to get” the Holy Ghost or remission of sins. Paul said it was by faith not by works.
And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this [the cup] is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
But it is not the drinking of the wine that remits sin. Even you agree with that, i think. The bread and wine in the lords supper represent what actually remits the sin, just as baptism does not remit sin, it is merely a symbol of what actually remits sin. Both the taking of the lords supper and baptism come after being saved.
I also have read here on your sight that one must believe before they are baptized. This is 100% correct, but where you are going wrong is by saying one is not saved when they believe but once they are baptized. The bible says, “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.” Once a person believes they have everlasting life they do not need to perform the work of baptism or any other work to be saved. You can explain it however you like, but if you add the condition of baptism to receiving God’s grace you have mixed works with grace and made God out to be a liar in reference to JHN 3:36. You can not lump faith and beleif in as a work. Even James who you mis-quoted to say we must work for salvation does not believe faith is a work. Thats why he is telling people to prove their faith with works. Their faith is not a work, their faith produces the work. I have given many verses time after time and you have not answered any of them.
Erik, the NIV has a comma after repent, which you said was gramatically incorrect. “Repent and be baptized, every one ” I would guess that is what he was talking about, im not sure if any other versions move the comma. also i think you should take a look at some rules on comma usage before you accuse people of making things up: http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/commas.htm
I appreciate your comment Erik.
I just have one note regarding the grammar of Acts 2:38 that this “Baptist college student” talked about on his blog.
He said, “A large reason why this verse is misunderstood is because of our lack of knowledge of basic grammar. The part in red is set off by commas so this makes it a separate statement,” but he himself does not understand grammar (I hope he’s not an English major!) The grammar used by the KJV was different than ours. The second comma after “sins” is really a semicolon in modern translations. A semicolon can only be used to separate two independent clauses, so, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” is one clause and “you shall receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit” is another. I don’t know why this “college student” is trying to say that everything in the commas can be treated as if it were in parenthesis. He later goes on to say, “If you have a Bible that has a comma after baptized(Repent and be baptized,) instead of after (Repent,) then you have a serious heretical error,” however it is grammatically incorrect to have a comma after “baptize,” so what is he talking about?
And then he goes on to say that the word “for” in Acts 2:38 can be translated as “because of,” however “eis” can NOT be translated as “because of.” At this point he is only making things up to make himself feel right, I guess?
I skimmed over the rest of it and it looked pretty laughable to me. Baptists can be so crazy at times. I wish I had time to refute the rest of it :(
I did take time to refute the errors presented on “mstucky”. Only the closed-minded Calvinist would believe that “mstucky” proved presented any truth in Scripture, but an out for those who can not give “the answer of a good conscience toward God”, baptism (1 Peter 3:21).
Joe,
You misunderstand. I have always said that baptism is work as is faith, but we are not saved by this work. Therefore it is not works-salvation. When I think of works salvation, I think of 1st century Judaism trying to earn salvation by the Law of Moses. A 21st century example is someone who likes the idea of Jesus and who also believes that by being “good” then they deserve to go to Heaven hence the common idea “that good people go to Heaven and I’m a good person so I’m going to Heaven.” This cuts Christ’s grace right out of salvation.
Regarding the Lord’s Supper, I think you are referring to Matthew 26:28, which is not referring to the Lord’s Supper for salvation but to Christ’s blood, ” this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto forgiveness of sins.” See, just as Christ’s blood is unto the forgiveness of sins, so is baptism a work of true belief and the point at which Christ washes away one’s sins.
I hope for grace and peace to you in Christ Jesus.
Im glad to hear you use the lord’s supper as an example. Because Jesus plainly taught that the act of communion is symbolic, his words were spirit, just like baptism is a symbolic.
To interpret acts 2:38 to be a requirement for salvation and not include communion as essential as well is dishonest. the same language is used in both verses and you are merely ignoring consistency in your interpretation to teach whatever you want.
IF we were saved one the condition of baptism(work) it is no longer the gift of God. It is the gift of God and the “chruch” of “christ” minister. this is what its all about, these campbellites want in on God’s job.
Seems like in this post you are trying to say that baptism is not work, “It is not “works-salvation” to be saved by Christ in baptism in His name. The one baptized does not even baptize oneself, so it is not one’s own working.” But in your previous posts and discussions you have out-right said it was work and that we were saved by works+grace. Any fool could see the inconsistency in this line of thinking.
For those interested in a refutation of everything Scott has said it has already been posted in the blog he referred to: http://mstucky253.wordpress.com/