It's my belief that many of what I would call 50/50 passages, that is, passages that can equally be translated two different ways, were translated wrongly. The word "eis" can mean "for," "unto," or "in regard to". The grammar allows for multiple angles. That's a fact. But, I'm only making the point that there are valid options in the original languages in interpreting this passage and the ones like it.
Acts 2:38-39 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call."
Here, in Acts 10, Peter says the exact opposite in order as the NKJV says he did in Acts 2:38-39. He also stresses that this is the same way he received the Holy Spirit (order implied) and was saved.
Acts 10:44-48 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then Peter answered, "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.
Also confirmed in Acts 11:15-17. just believe.
Acts 11:15-17 And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, as upon us at the beginning. Then I remembered the word of the Lord, how He said, 'John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' If therefore God gave them the same gift as He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?"
Even in this unique transitional period, these true OT believers in Acts 19 who missed the whole thing, Jesus coming in the flesh, died on the cross, rose on the third day, and later ascended, and these OT believers missed it all. Knowing that their understanding ends with John the Baptist, we see the significance of the dialog between them and Paul here in Acts 19. Also notice that John s baptism is not contrasted with being baptized in the name of Jesus, it's contrasted with the baptism that saves, a baptism by faith, the baptism with the Holy Spirit, the one true baptism. Paul asks a simple question to understand the exact spiritual state that they are in in this unique transitional period. While they were water baptized after they believed, and before they received the Holy Spirit indwelling, the water baptism is not part of the cause and is not significant in that regard. It is still significant as a public testimony. The answer as to what saves is right there in the passage. Can you see it?
Acts 19:1-6 And it happened, while Apollos was at Corinth, that Paul, having passed through the upper regions, came to Ephesus. And finding some disciples he said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" So they said to him, "We have not so much as heard whether there is a Holy Spirit." And he said to them, "Into what then were you baptized?" So they said, "Into John's baptism." Then Paul said, "John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus." When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.
Here in Acts 8:14-16, the indwelling was waiting for the Apostle in this unique transitional period.
Acts 8:14-17 Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them, who, when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.
Even in the Gospels, these 'proof passages' that are used are prove the idea that water baptism saves are intentionally interpreted as half truths. Remember, water baptism and belief went hand in hand at that time. One without the other was almost never heard of. BUT, that does not mean that the power unto salvation comes from both, water baptism and believing. It's the Spirit baptism that saves, not water. Water baptism points, Spirit baptism saves. Why? Because it is the Spirit baptism that places us into Christ. That baptism into Christ is from the receiving of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Believe and be saved, that's the Gospel. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit places us into Christ, the One True Church. Water baptism places us into water, as a symbolic testimony of the the spiritual placing into that came as a result of the Spirit indwelling.
Mark 16:16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.
So, the original languages in Acts 2:38, and others like it have equal options in translating them to English. All those options are valid linguistically, but not all of those options are valid theologically. So linguistically, there's nothing that anyone can really hang their hat on to support their interpretation of that passage. At least none that has been noted by anyone that I've heard. The true translation must come from comparing Scripture with Scripture, which I started to do in the OP. To just pick a passage, like Acts 2:38-39, and disregard the others that give an opposite order, is not an option. The only argument that I ever heard for all the other passages that leave out water baptism all together is that water baptism was assumed into them. That's a lot of assuming throughout the Bible for just a few 50/50 verses.
I don't know weather it was the old English of the KJV, reversing things, which is common in the KJV (Example - John 1:12-13), or the influence of the Catholic church back then, or just Ex Catholics who, when translating, didn't realize how deep the poison really went. Regardless, a big red flag should raise when we rewrite the whole Bible for a few, as I call them, 50/50 passages.
Believe and be saved, that's the Gospel. Water baptism is a testimony, not magic water. It points to our Spirit baptism, the one true baptism. People always want to apply the power to the types, but the types point, the Spirit gives birth spirit. Faith initiates that Spirit baptism, not water. Water baptism places you into water, Spirit baptism places you in Christ.
Acts 2:38-39 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call."
Here, in Acts 10, Peter says the exact opposite in order as the NKJV says he did in Acts 2:38-39. He also stresses that this is the same way he received the Holy Spirit (order implied) and was saved.
Acts 10:44-48 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then Peter answered, "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.
Also confirmed in Acts 11:15-17. just believe.
Acts 11:15-17 And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, as upon us at the beginning. Then I remembered the word of the Lord, how He said, 'John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' If therefore God gave them the same gift as He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?"
Even in this unique transitional period, these true OT believers in Acts 19 who missed the whole thing, Jesus coming in the flesh, died on the cross, rose on the third day, and later ascended, and these OT believers missed it all. Knowing that their understanding ends with John the Baptist, we see the significance of the dialog between them and Paul here in Acts 19. Also notice that John s baptism is not contrasted with being baptized in the name of Jesus, it's contrasted with the baptism that saves, a baptism by faith, the baptism with the Holy Spirit, the one true baptism. Paul asks a simple question to understand the exact spiritual state that they are in in this unique transitional period. While they were water baptized after they believed, and before they received the Holy Spirit indwelling, the water baptism is not part of the cause and is not significant in that regard. It is still significant as a public testimony. The answer as to what saves is right there in the passage. Can you see it?
Acts 19:1-6 And it happened, while Apollos was at Corinth, that Paul, having passed through the upper regions, came to Ephesus. And finding some disciples he said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" So they said to him, "We have not so much as heard whether there is a Holy Spirit." And he said to them, "Into what then were you baptized?" So they said, "Into John's baptism." Then Paul said, "John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus." When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.
Here in Acts 8:14-16, the indwelling was waiting for the Apostle in this unique transitional period.
Acts 8:14-17 Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them, who, when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.
Even in the Gospels, these 'proof passages' that are used are prove the idea that water baptism saves are intentionally interpreted as half truths. Remember, water baptism and belief went hand in hand at that time. One without the other was almost never heard of. BUT, that does not mean that the power unto salvation comes from both, water baptism and believing. It's the Spirit baptism that saves, not water. Water baptism points, Spirit baptism saves. Why? Because it is the Spirit baptism that places us into Christ. That baptism into Christ is from the receiving of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Believe and be saved, that's the Gospel. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit places us into Christ, the One True Church. Water baptism places us into water, as a symbolic testimony of the the spiritual placing into that came as a result of the Spirit indwelling.
Mark 16:16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.
So, the original languages in Acts 2:38, and others like it have equal options in translating them to English. All those options are valid linguistically, but not all of those options are valid theologically. So linguistically, there's nothing that anyone can really hang their hat on to support their interpretation of that passage. At least none that has been noted by anyone that I've heard. The true translation must come from comparing Scripture with Scripture, which I started to do in the OP. To just pick a passage, like Acts 2:38-39, and disregard the others that give an opposite order, is not an option. The only argument that I ever heard for all the other passages that leave out water baptism all together is that water baptism was assumed into them. That's a lot of assuming throughout the Bible for just a few 50/50 verses.
I don't know weather it was the old English of the KJV, reversing things, which is common in the KJV (Example - John 1:12-13), or the influence of the Catholic church back then, or just Ex Catholics who, when translating, didn't realize how deep the poison really went. Regardless, a big red flag should raise when we rewrite the whole Bible for a few, as I call them, 50/50 passages.
Believe and be saved, that's the Gospel. Water baptism is a testimony, not magic water. It points to our Spirit baptism, the one true baptism. People always want to apply the power to the types, but the types point, the Spirit gives birth spirit. Faith initiates that Spirit baptism, not water. Water baptism places you into water, Spirit baptism places you in Christ.