Baptismal regeneration

[SolaScriptura in 2003]

BeeBee,

My question to you is "Where does the Bible teach that Baptism is in order to obtain the remission of sins?"

"Peter said to them, 'Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.'" (Acts 2:38 New Revised Standard Version)

[ January 07, 2003, 12:54 AM: Message edited by: SolaScriptura in 2003 ]

 

[BeeBee]

Hi SolaScriptura in 2003,

I noticed you are attempting to use Acts 2:38 as a verse teaching “Baptismal Remission”.

Acts 2:38 "...be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins..."

This is based on a faulty assumption first of all b/c
If you will notice the Greek word for “for” is “Eis”.

The context issue is this: Where can we find Baptism followed by the greek word ‘eis’. If you ask that question you see a direct parallel b/t Acts 2:38 and Mathew 3:11:

“ I indeed baptize you with water unto (eis) repentance.”

John is not saying I baptize you with water IN ORDER TBTAIN (eis) repentance.
He simply means I baptize you with water IN REFERENCE TO (eis) repentance.

You would agree with me that first you REPENT, and THEN you baptize. They were not baptized "in order to obtain" repentance" but "in reference to" there repentance.

Staying in the context of baptism followed by the Greek word (eis) we find that the bible gives many examples of this. Note the following:

Mathew 28:19

“… baptizing them in (eis) the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”

It would be very erroneous to say :
Baptizing them (in order to obtain) the name of the Father……

It simply means “Baptizing them (in reference to) the name of the Father……
Also look at other verses that the Greek word (eis) follows Baptism:

(in;eis)Mark 1:9, (in;eis)Acts 8:16, (Unto;eis)Acts 19:3, (in) Acts 19:5,(Into)Romans 6:3-4,(in) 1 Cor. 1:13,(in)1 Cor. 1:15;(unto)10:2;(into)12:13;, (into)Galatians 3:27.

So Acts 2:38 does not stand by itself in the new testament. There are many places where Baptism is followed by the Greek word “eis”, and none of these mean “in order to obtain”. So using Acts 2:38 is standing on a faulty basis. May God bless you

(“He that believeth on him is not condemned…..John 3:18)

In Christ,
Bobby

[ January 07, 2003, 12:57 AM: Message edited by: BeeBee ]

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi BeeBee,

You wrote, "you failed to see that this is the 'Likefigure' not the real thing."

Likefigure is the relation of baptism to the situation presented before the word "baptism" wherein "eight persons" were "saved through water". Peter is saying that baptism is like this situation. As the eight persons were "saved through" water in the Great Deluge, so you are saved through the waters of baptism.

Far from contradicting baptismal regeneration, the word "likefigure" shows how baptism was foreshadowed and prefigured by the Great Flood, which at one and the same time destroyed sin on Earth thereby cleansing it and allowed for the saving of the eight persons aboard the Ark.

Rightly diving the word of truth, I am,

Carson

 

[SolaScriptura in 2003]

" I indeed baptize you with water unto (eis) repentance."

John is not saying I baptize you with water IN ORDER TBTAIN (eis) repentance.
He simply means I baptize you with water IN REFERENCE TO (eis) repentance.

You would agree with me that first you REPENT, and THEN you baptize.

There is also repentance that comes after baptism, as Peter told Simon Magus to repent, and as Christ told the churches in Asia to repent. Did John not also baptize them into a life of repentence?

You forget that the EXACT PHRASE "for the remission of sins" EXACT in both English and Greek is used both in Mat 26:28 and Acts 2:38 -- can it mean different things in each?

(in;eis)Mark 1:9, (in;eis)Acts 8:16, (Unto;eis)Acts 19:3, (in) Acts 19:5,(Into)Romans 6:3-4,(in) 1 Cor. 1:13,(in)1 Cor. 1:15;(unto)10:2;(into)12:13;, (into)Galatians 3:27.

Notice that most of these you say "into" or "in." Take eis as into in Mat 26:28, and Jesus is shedding his blood into remission. Then with eis meaning into in Acts 2:38, we are baptized into the place where Jesus shed his blood. Thus, we see that the blood of Christ and baptism work together to the same end.

"And baptism, of which this is an image, now gives you salvation, not by washing clean the flesh, but by making you free from the sense of sin before God, through the coming again of Jesus Christ from the dead;" (1st Peter 3:21, Bible in Basic English)

This translation makes it simple even for the unstable. (2 Pet 3:16) BAPTISM IS NOT THE IMAGE! The flood is the image! How Baptists always come up with this mess about "Peter says baptism is figurative in 1 Peter 3:21" is obvious -- they can't accept God's Word! In NO translation does it look like baptism is the image -- in all of them, it is clear that the flood is the figure, but how much clearer in this one? Even so, you will still say that baptism is the image in this passage -- you always do. So, I'll let God handle that.

 

[BeeBee]

Hi Carson,
Looking at it from your perspective (the 'literal' washing away of sin) the only people who came into contact with the water were the ones on the outside, and it did them no better than it does people who expect touching the waters of baptism will save them.

"He that believeth on him is not condemned...Jn. 3:18"

In Christ,
Bobby

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Bobby,

What does Peter say about the waters of the Great Flood in the third chapter of his first epistle? What does Scripture say?

"A few persons, eight in all, were saved through water" (1 Peter 3:20).

Are we reading the same epistle?

God bless you,

Carson

 

[SolaScriptura in 2003]

Why does the Baptist church require more of a man than God (in their view anyway)? Baptists claim that baptism isn't necessary to salvation, why then do they make it necessary to church membership?

From the New Hampshire Baptist Confession of 1833:

"We believe that Christian Baptism is the immersion in water of a believer, into the name of the Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost; to show forth, in a solemn and beautiful emblem, our faith in the crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, with its effect in our death to sin and resurrection to a new life; that it is prerequisite to the privileges of a Church relation; and to the Lord's Supper, in which the members of the Church, by the sacred use of bread and wine, are to commemorate together the dying love of Christ; preceded always by solemn self-examination."

How is it determined by the Baptist church that baptism is a prerequisite to church membership and the Lord's Supper and not to salvation? Indeed, how can a man have salvation without the church and the Lord's Supper? The Scripture calls the "forsaking the assembling of ourselves together" a "willfull sin" in Heb 10:25-26 and describes it as one which unrepented of will lead us to having nothing to look forward to but "a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries." (Heb 10:27) And Jesus says "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you." (John 6:53)

But the Baptist church thinks itself so much wiser than both Christ and the writer of Hebrews (which by inspiration is the Holy Spirit) that it says church membership and the Lord's Supper are not necessary to salvation AND that baptism is necessary to these but not salvation? What convoluted doctrine is this? It certainly does not come from the Word of God!

[ January 07, 2003, 01:35 AM: Message edited by: SolaScriptura in 2003 ]

 

[BeeBee]

There is also repentance that comes after baptism, as Peter told Simon Magus to repent, and as Christ told the churches in Asia to repent. Did John not also baptize them into a life of repentence?

Are you saying that John the Baptist Baptized them first, and then they repented?

You forget that the EXACT PHRASE "for the remission of sins" EXACT in both English and Greek is used both in Mat 26:28 and Acts 2:38 -- can it mean different things in each?

That’s where context comes in to play. The context issue is this:
Where can we find Baptism followed by the Greek word (eis)?
Again if you ask that question you will find a direct parallel between Acts 2:38 and Math. 3:11, and many, many, verses.

Remission of sins IN FACT - Christs Death Matt.26:26-28
“CHRIST PROCURES REMISSION”

Remission of sins IN EXPERIENCE- Through Faith Acts 10:43
“FAITH RECIEVES REMISSION”

Remission of sins IN CEREMONY-Baptism,Lords Supper Acts 2:38; 1 Cor. 11:26
“CEREMONIES DECLARE REMISSION”

Biblical ordinances were NEVER designed to secure the actual thing which they represented.

“It is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins” Heb. 10:4
“Sacrifices, which can never take away sins” Heb. 10:11

Compare the Lord’s Supper (Matthew 26:26-28) and to Baptism (Romans 6:3-6)

Misapplicatioon of this truth leads to the error of adding something to the work of Christ, as in Acts 15:1, and misinterpreting language, which is figurative and not literal as in John 6:53.

Biblical Example

Christ healed a man of leprosy ---“Be thou clean” (Luke 5:13))
AFTER the healing, the man was told to make the offering “for thy cleansing.”
This offering was to be “for a TESTIMONY unto them” (5:14)
This is the sense in which Physical ordinances accomplish their purpose. They are visible testimonies to the things for which they stand.

I still assert
“He that believeth on Him is not condemned….”

In Christ,
Bobby Crenshaw

[ January 07, 2003, 01:44 AM: Message edited by: BeeBee ]

 

[BeeBee]

Carson,

What does Peter say about the waters of the Great Flood in the third chapter of his first epistle? What does Scripture say?

"A few persons, eight in all, were saved through water" (1 Peter 3:20).

Are we reading the same epistle?

I’ve already explained my position on that. Look at my post where there is saved by (dia) water, and saved by (dia) fire.

Thanks,
In Christ

 

[BeeBee]

SolaScriptura in 2003,

The bible says in Ephesians 1:13:

13in whom ye also, having heard the word of the truth, the gospel of your salvation,-- in whom, having also believed, ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,

This verse makes it unmistakably clear in the Greek, if your affluent in Greek you can check it. That At the point of Belief is when they were sealed. Not having been baptized, but having “Believed” John 3:18.

How do you reconcile this verse with your baptismal view?

“He that believeth on him is not condemned…John 3:18”

Good Night!zzz

May God bless you,
In Christ,
Bobby

[ January 07, 2003, 02:10 AM: Message edited by: BeeBee ]

 

[SolaScriptura in 2003]

Notice this, BeeBee:

"Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture (Isaiah 53:7), and preached unto him Jesus." (Acts 8:35)

What happened in the next verse? The man asked to be baptized! How did he hear of baptism when all Philip preached was Jesus????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Baptism is part of Jesus and when you preach Jesus you preach baptism. THEREFORE, when you believe Jesus you believe baptism.

BTW: You still haven't answered why the Baptist church requires more of a man than God does (in your view that is).

[ January 07, 2003, 02:28 AM: Message edited by: SolaScriptura in 2003 ]

 

[BeeBee]

Hi Sola Scriptura in 2003,

BTW: You still haven't answered why the Baptist church requires more of a man than God does (in your view that is).

Eph.1:13in whom ye also, having heard the word of the truth, the gospel of your salvation,-- in whom, having also believed, ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,

According to Paul The person is sealed BEFORE bible study, witnessing, giving tithes, Baptism, Lords Supper,prayer,etc.

Baptism is part of Jesus and when you preach Jesus you preach baptism

First of all Paul distinguished the Gospel from Baptism (1 Cor. 1:17)

17For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not in wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made void.

So you can have preaching of the Gospel without mention of Baptism.Paul tells us specifically what this Gospel is,
Notice Pauls words :

1 Cor. 15:1 Now I make known unto you brethren, the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye received, wherein also ye stand, 2by which also ye are saved, if ye hold fast the word which I preached unto you, except ye believed in vain. 3For I delivered unto you first of all that which also I received: that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4and that he was buried; and that he hath been raised on the third day according to the scriptures; 5and that he appeared to Cephas; then to the twelve; 6then he appeared to above five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain until now, but some are fallen asleep; 7then he appeared to James; then to all the apostles; 8and last of all, as to the child untimely born, he appeared to me also.

Let me first ask you a question I would like you to answer. Do you believe the bible commands you to believe? And when you obey this command does faith have its origin?

BTW:and also Not to get off the subject, For curiosity sake. Are you a "Campbellite" by which I mean you seem to adhere to the teachings of Thomas and Alexander Campbell and the movement of which he was the instigator.

God bless you,
In Christ,
Bobby

[ January 07, 2003, 05:02 PM: Message edited by: BeeBee ]

 

[SolaScriptura in 2003]

First of all Paul distinguished the Gospel from Baptism (1 Cor. 1:17)

In 1 Cor 1:17 Paul does not make a distinction between the gospel and baptism but between true Christians and sectarians. The context is about those baptizing in their own name and he is glad that he personally had not baptized many of them lest they might accuse him of baptizing in his OWN NAME. This does not suppose that the Corinthians were not baptized but that some one other than Paul baptized them, most likely Apollos. "For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel" shows that baptism without preaching is worthless, and that baptism not based on gospel fact and not in Jesus' name is worthless, but it does not show that baptism is not part of the gospel. Paul did not say that he did not preach baptism but that he was not sent merely to baptize! His mission was one and the same as Jesus commanded "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you..." So, Paul is saying that he is following the great comission of Mat 28:19-20 -- that he is not merely baptizing but preaching first and teaching after. If you cannot see this, then truly you are as those who Paul speaks of when he says "and the rest were blinded." (Rom 11:7)

Let me first ask you a question I would like you to answer. Do you believe the bible commands you to believe? And when you obey this command does faith have its origin?

Obviously, seeing as how "he that believes not is condemned already." Since when does a Baptist consider belief a command to be obeyed? Where did your Calvinism and faith as a gift go all of the sudden? Are you admitting that man has the ability to believe and free will? Your Calvinistic system is so repugnant to reason that you yourselves cannot hardly stik with it for more than a paragraph! Faith that does not motivate to baptism is worthless for "Baptism doth also now save us" Peter says, although you deny it. He futher adds that it does not save by washing the body but by being the "answer of a good conscience toward God." Does that not speak of faith and understanding of God's commands? How can one answer their conscience without faith? Even so, there surely is a dead faith vs a living and saving faith, is there not?

BTW:and also Not to get off the subject, For curiosity sake. Are you a "Campbellite" by which I mean you seem to adhere to the teachings of Thomas and Alexander Campbell and the movement of which he was the instigator.

I am no Campbellite. But, if it so happens that Alexander Campbell also followed the Scriptures as I do, then I am glad of it. I will say, however, that the Protestant reformers went too far in some aspects of their reformation and not far enough in other parts. In seeking to distance themselves from Rome they denied that baptism is essential (although the Bible teaches that) while at the same time in seeking to stay close to Rome they continued infant baptism (which the Bible teaches against) - these are the sort of men YOU follow - those who could not make up their mind whether they should leave antichrist or no. I follow Christ and what the word of God says, and if Campbell did the same he is justified in it.

I know that Campbell spoke of baptism as "in order to obtain remission" but he surely did not originate that idea, for Peter speaks of it in Acts 2:38 and Justin Martyr (2nd century) also in his First Apology:

Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, “Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” (John 3:5) Now, that it is impossible for those who have once been born to enter into their mothers' wombs, is manifest to all. And how those who have sinned and repent shall escape their sins, is declared by Esaias the prophet, as I wrote above; he thus speaks: "Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from your souls; learn to do well; judge the fatherless, and plead for the widow: and come and let us reason together, saith the Lord. And though your sins be as scarlet, I will make them white like wool; and though they be as crimson, I will make them white as snow. But if ye refuse and rebel, the sword shall devour you: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it." (Isaiah 1:16-20)

And for this [baptism] we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe; he who leads to the laver the person that is to be washed calling him [that is the Father] by this name alone [that is the phrase “name of God the Father”]. For no one can utter the name of the ineffable God; and if any one dare to say that there is a name, he raves with a hopeless madness [even today, many rave with hopeless madness saying you must pronounce God's name as 'Yahweh' or go to hell]. And this washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings. And in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Ghost, who through the prophets foretold all things about Jesus, he who is illuminated is washed. (Justin, First Apology, chp. LXI)

Am I a Campbellite? No. Did Campbell know more about God's word than you? Yes. Did Campbell know more than Calvin? Yes. Did he know more than Peter? No, that's why he's right and you're wrong - he agreed with Peter and you don't. I follow Christ not Campbell, but if someome is going to call me something that I am not, I'd rather they call me a Campbellite than a Calvinist.

See if you agree with Campbell here as I do:

THE SUBJECT OF BAPTSIM
IV. Characters, not persons, as such, are the subjects of baptism. Penitent believers - not infants nor adults, not males nor females, not Jews nor Greeks; but professors of repentance towards God, and faith in Christ - are the proper subjects of this ordinance. "To as many as received him, to them he granted privilege of becoming the sons of God, to them that believed on his name, which were born not of flesh, nor of blood, nor of the will of man, but of God." "He that believeth, and is baptized [not he that is baptized and believeth], /42/shall be saved." "Many of the Corinthians bearing, believed and were baptized," not many of the Corinthians were baptized and then believed, and finally heard the gospel! "for without faith it is impossible to please God," etc.

THE MEANING OF BAPTISM
V. "In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judea, the baptism of repentance, for the remission of sins." "And Jesus said that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem." Therefore, Peter said to the penitent Pentecostians, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of the Lord Jesus, for the remission of sins." Again, "As many of you as have been baptized or immersed into Christ, have put on Christ, have been immersed into his death"; "have risen with him."

VI. Baptism is, then, designed to introduce the subjects of it into the participation of the blessings of the death and resurrection of Christ; who "died for our sins," and "rose again for our justification." But it has no abstract efficacy. Without previous faith in the blood of Christ, and deep and unfeigned repentance before God, neither immersion in water, nor any other action, can secure to us the blessings of peace and pardon. It can merit nothing. Still to the believing penitent it is the means of receiving a formal, distinct, and specific absolution, or release from guilt. Therefore, none but those who have first believed the testimony of God and have repented of their sins, and that have been intelligently immersed into his death, have the full and explicit testimony of God, assuring them of pardon. To such only as are truly penitent, dare we say, "Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling upon the name of the Lord," and to such only can we say with assurance, "You are washed, you are justified, you are sanctified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of God." But let the reader examine with care our special essay on the Remission of Sins, in which this much-debated subject is discussed at considerable length.

[ January 07, 2003, 09:30 PM: Message edited by: SolaScriptura in 2003 ]

 

[BeeBee]

Sola Scriptura,
First of all you didn’t answer my question:

Do you believe the bible commands you to believe? And when you obey this command does faith have its origin?

For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel" shows that baptism without preaching is worthless

You claim that the Gospel includes baptism, but Paul said he did not receive it of man, and we know he received baptism from the hands of Ananias.
1 Cor. 1:11-12

11For I make known to you, brethren, as touching the gospel which was preached by me, that it is not after man. 12For neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came to me through revelation of Jesus Christ.

Paul made a clear distinction between the Gospel and baptism in 1 Cor. and he specifically named the ones he did baptize, as I look through his description of the "GOSPEL" in 1 Cor.I never run across the word "BAPTISM" once.

You then went rounds about Baptist, and Calvinism(Which I may add that Alexander Campbell claimed to be and never repudiated it that I'm aware of), but never said yes or no. To my top question.

Are you admitting that man has the ability to believe and free will?

I believe man is commanded to and he has a responsibility. Where is the verse that teaches faith does not work by love, but by “free will.”

23And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment .

That’s why I said “He that believeth on him, is not condemned…..”
This means if you trust in Jesus Christ in the full measure of your faith for your salvation, you are not condemned. And if man opens his own heart (Acts 16:14) is a whole different debate. Try Calvinism/Arminianism.The burden is on you to find a verse in the bible that teaches “He that believeth on him IS condemned”?

Your Calvinistic system is so repugnant to reason that you yourselves cannot hardly stik with it for more than a paragraph!

Exactly what your saying here I am not sure, And yes I believe that “He” that began salvation will finish it Phill. 1:6 Again try Calvinism/Arminianism debate. I agree with
you that a faith that doesn’t show itself in good works is useless. There is no
disagreement there.
JUSTIFICATION
The GROUND of it – Christ’s Righteousness (Romans 3:24-26) PROCURES SALVATION
The MEANS of it – Faith (Romans 5:1;4:5)INSTRUMENTAL
The EVIDENCE of it – Good works (James 2:24)DEMONSTRATIVE

But Baptism Does not Literally save.Where do you find in the bible that whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is not born of God until baptism? (1 John 5:1)

The bible teaches as follows:
Eph.1:13in whom ye also, having heard the word of the truth, the gospel of your salvation,-- in whom, having also believed, ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,

According to Paul The person is sealed BEFORE bible study, witnessing, giving tithes, Baptism, Lords Supper,prayer, ________ you fill in the blank, but the point is the Greek makes it clear that the person was sealed WHEN he believed. Baptism is not the Gospel, because Paul clearly told us what the Gospel was in 1 Cor.l

In seeking to distance themselves from Rome they denied that baptism is essential (although the Bible teaches that) while at the same time in seeking to stay close to Rome they continued infant baptism (which the Bible teaches against) - these are the sort of men YOU follow - those who could not make up their mind whether they should leave antichrist or no.

Actually you are the one that is closer to Rome. Note some of the following similiarities.
1.Rome teaches there is no salvation outside her church.
So do the “Campbellites”
2.Rome teaches they are the propogator of the truth.
Many “Campbellites” use the term “We speak where the bible speaks, and are silent where the bible is silent”. In other words there understanding of the scriptures are always correct. They always plea to return to the bible yet its to return to the way ‘they’ see it.
3.Rome teaches that Baptism removes original sin and that the blood is literally his blood. They believe they can trace thereselves back to the apostles.
“Campbellites” primary doctrine of water salvation has resulted from a misinterpretation of Peters words in Acts 2:38 both in English and Greek. “Campbellites” believe they can trace thereselves also but instead of leading to the time of the apostles you run into several men. Thomas,and Alexander Campbell, Barton Stone and Walter Scott.
4.Rome rejects salvation by faith alone (An entire chapter in a religion course… distributed by the Knights of Columbus with the Imprimatur of the Archbishop of St. Louis is entitles: You are not saved by faith alone.” Baal or God—Herman Otten, Leader Publishing Co., New Haven, Missouri.)
Campbellites believe that the person who trusts in Jesus Christ is condemned, and can even have the Spirit baptizing them in Himself (Acts 10), and if he were to die, he would go to hell, b/c they were condemned until they were baptized.
4.Rome places a mediator b/t God and man who must perform rituals.
Campbellites place a human mediator between you and salvation.
5. Rome believes ordinances of the Church have a saving efficacy.
Campbellites teach that individuals come into contact with the blood of Christ in the waters of baptism.

that's why he's right and you're wrong - he agreed with Peter and you don't.

Alexander Campbell was right? Well let me ask you a question, when did Alexander Campbell ever follow the truth and become saved? The only baptism he ever had was by a Baptist preacher (1812)(And this was without the belief that it was "in order to obtain" the remission of sins, he "discovered" that in 1823, and claimed to be the first man in modern times to believe this. Whats funny is he never sought to be re-baptized, so according to your teaching he is probably in hell right now.

I know that Campbell spoke of baptism as "in order to obtain remission" bur he surely did not originate that idea, for Peter speaks of it in Acts 2:38

Another thing is you never specifically answered Mathew 3:11. Acts 2:38 does not stand by itself in the New Testament. There are other places such as Math. 3:11 that directly parallel with Acts 2:38, with the greek word (eis) following baptism.

11I indeed baptize you with water unto (Eis) repentance…”

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for (eis) the remission of sins.

Is John baptizing “in order to obtain” repentance?
Or does he baptize “because of” or “in reference to”?

Another example:
I quoted many examples to you where that baptism is followed up by the Greek word (eis), can you find ONE of them that it would make sense to insert “In order to obtain” as you proclaim that Peter is saying here.

And look at Math. 12:41 “… because they repented at (eis) the preaching of Jonah….”
The obvious meaning of this verse is that the men of Nineveh repented out of respect to—or with reference to --- the message preached by Jonah. It would be impossible to say that it means they repented “in order to obtain” the preaching of Jonah.

Its not hard to see the error of this interpretation considering there are MANY other places in the bible where baptism is followed up by the greek word "Eis" and NONE show them to mean "in order to obtain" as you and Mr. Campbell proclaim.

What about the salvation of the thief on the cross (Luke 23-39-43):
We know that he was saved WITHOUT baptism.

Thanks for your interest in the scripture,
In Christ,
Bobby C.

[ January 08, 2003, 09:48 PM: Message edited by: BeeBee ]

 

[SolaScriptura in 2003]

"After" does not equal "exactly when," but rather means "after."

"How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?" (Rom 10:14)

The belief of the "pius unbaptized" is no belief at all, but mere mockery of God. But Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. Gal 6:7

Why waste me type? 1 Cor 14:38

[ January 09, 2003, 12:32 AM: Message edited by: SolaScriptura in 2003 ]

 

[Frank]

Bobby:
Eis is translated 1773 times in the new testament. It is never translated because of.( Smith, J.B. Greek- English Concordance of the New Testament.) The word epi is translated because of and is found in II Cor. 9:15.
Eis by definition means for,unto, to obtain or toward.The following Greek scholars concur with the previous mention of the meaning of eis. Arndt- Gingrich, Greek- English Lexicon of the New Testament, Thayer, J.H. A Greek- English Lexicon of the New Testament, Wallce, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. Metger, Bruce. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament.
Furthermore, in Acts 22:16, Thayer states, and I quote," For the sinner is unclean, polluted as it were by the filth of his sins. Whoever obtains remission of sins has his sins put, so to speak, out of God's sight,- is cleansed from them in the sight of God. Remission is obtained by undergoing baptism; hence those who have gone down into the baptismal bath... Titus 3:5, Eph. 5:26) are said to have washed themsleves or to have washed away their sins,i.e. to have been cleansed form their sins.
In submitting to immersion one is actually by tht act, " calling on" the Lord;s name( see Acts 2:20). Lenski observes that the aorist participle, calling on his name is either simultaneous with that of the aorist imperative( get yourself immersed and washed) or immediately preceeds it, the difference being merely formal.
There is no way,of course, that mere water could wash away sins. The water of baptsim contains no miraculous power. Immersion is, however, the divinely appointed means of accessing the blood of Christ ( Romans 6:3,4), an to deny such is a repudaition of the plain testimony of the New testament.
H. B. Hackett, a Baptist, acknowledged that wash away your sins states the result of the baptism, in language derived from the nature of that ordinance. It answers to eis aphesin hamartion ( for the forgiveness of sins) in Acts 2:38,i.e. submit to the rite of baptism in order to be forgiven. Robert Stein of Bethel Theological Seminary states, " Washing away one's sins is here clearly connected with baptism and the calling on Jesus name." See Acts 22:16. Stein, Robert. Difficult Passages in the New Testament.
Henry B. Dewing, Bowdoin College, president of Athens College, Athens, Greece said," I should say that (eis) indicates not result or consequence but rather end or design, I should translate, Let every one of you be baptized for ( the attainment of) forgiveness of sins. The meaning because of is utterly out of the question, " the layman may not see a difference between result and end or consequence and design but grammarians like to make little technical differences between purpose and result which in this case makes no diffence since it comes out teaching the necessity of baptism and rejects completely the alternate idea of because of. Henry Brackett, is a profesor of Greek, Clark College said eis meant " in order to" but " for the purpose of is better because the fundamental universal meaning of eis is toward; in the direction of and not out of arising from or because of." Frank Foster,instructor of New Testament Greek in Oberlin Graduate School of Theology agrees with Bracket,as does Kittle in his Authoratative Theological Dictionary of the New Testament.
The passage of Mat. 12:41 where eis is used in means they repented toward the preaching of Jonah. The end result being the forgiveness of sins. However, the context is a discussion of the fact they changed their minds about his preaching. The object of their repentnace was the preaching of Jonah.
The passage of Mat. 3: 11 is a discussion of a group of people ( the Jews), not the indivdual repentance of a person. Notice the you is plural. The passage is teaching the purpose of John's ministry of preaching and baptizing in the wilderness. John's ministry of preaching was to bring Israel to repentance. Furthermore, being baptized in the Holy Spirit was a promise to those on Pentecost, see John 16:13,Luke 24:44-51, Acts 2:1-4. The Bible does not teach one must be baptized in the Holy Spirit to be saved. The baptism of fire reperesents God's final wrath against sin. II Thes. 1:6-9. Notice in verse 12 there are two groups under discussion the wheat and the chaff. The wheat will be gathered and the chaff will be burned. Mat. 3:12, Rev. 20:15. Moreover,in the parallel passage of Mark 1:8 in fire is omitted.
The text of Romans 4:20 is even plainer in its' meaning. It reads in N.I.V. " he did not waver through unbeief regarding the promise of God." Regarding EIS, the king Jmaes uses at, ( Nasb) has : with respect to the promise of God he did not waver in unblief," None of these translations has the sense of because of for it doesn't make sense at all here. Paul is not talking about staggering because of the promise of God. Rather, the sense of motion toward always inherent in EIS is very clear.
Belief is an action verb. When used in the context of salvation singularly, the term reperesents all of the essentials of salvation. Grammarians call this type usage synechdoche. A part for the whole or a whole for its' parts. Consider the following:1). I John 4:2, Romans 10:10 only confession is mentioned in regards to salvation. The rest of the conditions are implied.2).In Acts 11:18, repentance only is mentioned. Again, the rest of the conditions are implied. In John 8:24, belief only is mentioned. The rest of the conditions are implied. The same could be said of baptism in I Pet. 3: 21. The rest of the conditions are implied.

The rulers of John 12: 44,45 believed but refused to confess. Can a man be saved if he rejects to make known his loyalty to the Son of God? Jesus said it was a divine imperative. Mat. 10:32. The devils of James 2:19 believed. However, they are still devils. Are you saying because they believe they are not devils? One must follow the whole counsel of God. Acts 20:27. The SUM of thy words are truth. Psalms 119:160. ASV.

 

[BeeBee]

Eis is translated 1773 times in the new testament. It is never translated because of.

NEVER?

Math. 3:11
Amplified Bible - “because of”
renaissance new testament- “because of”
Phillips- “As a sign of”
Williams- “In token of”
Good Speed- “To Picture”
20th Century- “to teach”
Thayers Greek Lexicon which you mention- Pg. 184 “d.of reference or relation; with respect tom in reference to; as regards.
Arndt- Gingrich since you mention him he goes on to say on pg. 239 that “Eis” can mean “because of”.
Greek-English New Testament says that the word can mean “In accordance with” pg. 54.

The context issue is this, where do we find Baptism followed by the Greek word 'eis'. If you ask that question you find a direct parallel between Acts 2:38 and Matt. 3:11. I personally don’t believe that John baptized them to “get” or as you stated

for,unto, to obtain or toward

repentance but “In reference” to or possible “because of” there repentance.
11I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance……

The word “For” I have no problem with.
If you go to the store to get an apple “FOR” me.
Did you go to get me or the apple?
You simply went “in reference to “ me.

By the way do you believe that Johns baptism was Christian? I might be only 20 years old, but through my few years of contact with Campbellites 99% of the “Evangelists” and one of my friends, I find none of them believe that Johns baptism was Christian.

H. B. Hackett, a Baptist, acknowledged that wash away your sins states the result of the baptism, in language derived from the nature of that ordinance.

I myself would not object to the wording “in order to obtain” if by this it is meant that baptism is a shadow or “figure” or “likeness” of remission through Jesus Christ in the same sense as any other ordinance such as the Lord’s Supper (This “IS” my blood); but when men attempt to attribute the Campbellite sense to baptism, they detract from Jesus, distort baptism, and fall into the error of Rome, and the unsaved Jews with the “Blood” of animals which never literally washed away sin (Heb. 10:4).


Remission of sins IN FACT - Christs Death Matt.26:26-28
“CHRIST PROCURES REMISSION”

Remission of sins IN EXPERIENCE- Through Faith Acts 10:43
“FAITH RECIEVES REMISSION”

Remission of sins IN CEREMONY-Baptism,Lords Supper Acts 2:38; 1 Cor. 11:26
“CEREMONIES DECLARE REMISSION”

Biblical ordinances were NEVER designed to secure the actual thing which they represented.

“It is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins” Heb. 10:4
“Sacrifices, which can never take away sins” Heb. 10:11

Compare the Lord’s Supper (Matthew 26:26-28) and to Baptism (Romans 6:3-6)

Misapplication of this truth leads to the error of adding something to the work of Christ, as in Acts 15:1, and misinterpreting language, which is figurative and not literal as in John 6:53.
Biblical Example

Christ healed a man of leprosy ---“Be thou clean” (Luke 5:13))
AFTER the healing, the man was told to make the offering “for thy cleansing.”
This offering was to be “for a TESTIMONY unto them” (5:14)
This is the sense in which Physical ordinances accomplish their purpose. They are visible testimonies to the things for which they stand.

I also noted that you many times put where “Because of” does not make sense. And unless I’m badly mistaken I only put it could mean “Because of” one time in my writing. I am sure I mostly put “in reference to”.

Belief is an action verb. When used in the context of salvation singularly, the term reperesents all of the essentials of salvation.

You seem to me to be saying that when the bible uses the term “Faith” it is used as a collective term, and yes there is a sense in which the bible can use “The Faith” to mean to the whole body of Christian truth, but this is not the exclusive meaning of “faith”. When the bible says “He that believeth on him is not condemned…” it is not talking about the whole Christian truth. So Are you saying you can’t have belief unless you’ve got Baptism?
Do you believe the bible commands you to believe, and when you obey this command is faith alive?
Unfortunately John 3:18 “He that believeth on him is not condemned…” is not talking about the whole Christian walk. Its talking about the initial conversion experience, although works of faith FOLLOW faith such as baptism.’
Faith is the working principle in every phase of the Christian life, from the new birth to the resurrection. “Whatsoever is not of faith is sin” Rom. 14:23. The Christian life begins in faith, the Christian walks by faith, prays in faith, works by faith, and is kept by the power of “God” through faith.

When does Faith save?
Faith saves when it……
Works- (John 6:28-29)
Obeys- (Heb. 5:9;John 3:18)
Acts- (Eph. 1:13)
Works Righteousness- (Acts 10:35;John 6:28-29)
Does Gods Will- (John 6:40)
Establishes Gods law- (Romans 3:31; Rom. 10:4)

All of the above take place prior to baptism:
Faith is…
Born before baptism (1 John 5:1, 4)
Obeys before baptism (1 Peter 1:22,25)
Faith Loves before baptism (1 John 5:1)
Faith dwells in God before baptism (1 John 4:16)
Faith has life in the Son before baptism (1 John 5:12,13)

Faith is demonstrated by continous obedience:
Walking in good works- Eph. 2:10
Maintaining good works for NECESSARY USES –Tit. 3:8,14
Working by love – Gal. 5:6

It is Faith from beginning to end.

Remission is obtained by undergoing baptism; hence those who have gone down into the baptismal bath... Titus 3:5, Eph. 5:26

You assume everywhere the bible says “water” it is talking about baptism (Jn. 7:38-39).Neither of these verses say “baptism”, you have got to show me where they say baptism.

The rulers of John 12: 44,45 believed but refused to confess. Can a man be saved if he rejects to make known his loyalty to the Son of God?

There are many blessings promised at the point of true, or obedient, living faith in Christ as Saviour. I am not talking about Dead faith condemned by James; I am talking about the true faith of one who “believces on him and is not condemned” (Hohn 3:18). A man believes before he is baptized, so he is not condemned before baptism. I am talking about faith which is obedience to the commandment “That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ” (1 John 3:23; Acts 16:31)
I am not talking about the non-confessing faith of some who do not TRUST in Christ (John 12:42); I am talking about the faith which is TRUST in the heart, which confesses with the mouth (Romans 10:9-10)
I am not talking about a faith which will not obey God in good works; I am talking about “faith which is the gift of God” to those who are God’s workmanship, “created in Christ Jesus unto good works,” which God hath before “ordained that we should walk in them.”(Eph. 2:9-10)
Gods blessings are promised to such people at the point of faiths origin.

Immersion is, however, the divinely appointed means of accessing the blood of Christ ( Romans 6:3,4), an to deny such is a repudaition of the plain testimony of the New testament.

Denying “Plain” Testimony of the New Testament?
Here are some of the blessings promised to this kind of faith.
Son of God (John 1:12-13)
Eternal life (John 3:14-16;5:24;6:47)
Not condemned (John 3:18)
Passed from death to life (John 5:24)
Saved sheep (John 10 26-30)
Never die (1 John 11:26)
Remission of sins (Acts 10:43)
Forgiveness (Acts 13:38)
Justification (Acts 13:39)(Romans 5:1)
Heart purified (Acts 15:9)
Salvation (Acts 16:31)
Righteousness (Rom. 4:5-8;10:4)
Sin not imputed (Rom 4:8)
Peace (Rom. 5:1)
Love in the heart (Rom. 5:5, 1 John 4:7)
Sealed by Spirit (Eph. 1:13)
Born of God (1 John 4:7;5:1)
Indwelt by God (1 John 4:15; Rom. 8:14-16; 1 Cor. 6:19)

These are only a few that describe Gods blessings on obedient faith before baptism, but some are blind and unbelieving about these verses as the Pharisees were about the miracles of our Lord. They were wedded to their traditions, just as Campbellites are wedded to theres. As the Pharisees went about to establish there own righteousness by supposedly ‘obeying’ Gods word so the Campbellites go about to establish righteousness by supposed “obedience.” Reminds me of the Jews who wanted to take a “God given ordinance” “Circumcision” and ADD it to Faith (Acts 15:1). They said except you be “Circumcised you cant be saved.”

The devils of James 2:19 believed

This verse of scripture is referring to a BARE profession of faith, not to true and living faith which produces good works. Devils have never “Trusted” Christ for there salvation.

In “A Church of Christ” magazine “The Spiritual Sword” – April, 1977
“When one BELIEVES, he is OBEYING a COMMAND” p. 6 1 John 2:23
---------------------------------
Faith is as much a WORK as is BAPTISM.” P.7 (Jn. 6:28-29)
--------------------------------
“UNTIL faith OBEYS is DEAD, as James says it is.” – p. 8 (James 2:26)
-------------------------------
Conclusion:
1.Faith is a WORK in OBEDIENCE to a COMMAND.
2.This faith is a work to be obeyed BEFORE Baptism
3.Therefore, faith is a work in obedience performed before baptism and is NOT DEAD.

1. Faith is dead UNTIL it obeys.
2. Faith is a work in OBEDIENCE before baptism.
3. Therefore, since faith is a work of obedience before baptism, it has obeyed before baptism and is NOT DEAD.

1. James chapter 2 condemns “dead faith” ONLY, not obedient faith.
2. Faith which is a work of obedience before baptism is not “DEAD faith.”
3. Therefore, James chapter 2 does not condemn obedient faith BEFORE baptism.

Good works are not the GROUND, or PROCURING cause of our justification before God (Titus 3:5; Romans 10:4;4:2). Good works justify us in the eyes of men – “ye see” (James 2:24) the works which declare our faith.

What about the salvation of the thief on the cross (Luke 23-39-43):
We know that he was saved WITHOUT baptism.

Nowhere does the Bible teach that man is not saved until he is baptized.

God Bless you,
In Christ,
Bobby C.

[ January 09, 2003, 11:45 PM: Message edited by: BeeBee ]

 

[SolaScriptura in 2003]

I myself would not object to the wording “in order to obtain” if by this it is meant that baptism is a shadow or “figure” or “likeness” of remission through Jesus Christ in the same sense as any other ordinance such as the Lord’s Supper (This “IS” my blood); but when men attempt to attribute the Campbellite sense to baptism, they detract from Jesus, distort baptism, and fall into the error of Rome, and the unsaved Jews with the “Blood” of animals which never literally washed away sin (Heb. 10:4).

Concerning the blood of animals, I will say that they did not and could not remove nor remit sin. I must ask, however, if they were not offered by the Jews, would God have forgiven them? Would God have "back-applied" Christ's blood to the Jews of the OT had they said "ah! the animal sacrifices are just symbols so lets stop offering them"?

Now it is obvious to all that water does not save, but that Christ saves through the water. Just as the clay did not heal the eyes of the blind man, but Christ through the clay. To the same effect, Peter says "baptism saves you...through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" showing that in reality it is Christ's resurrection that is saving and that baptism is the instrument through which we are availing ourselves of that resurrection [which shows that this resurrection does not save the unbaptized, for Paul says "IF we have been planted together in the likeness of his death (baptism), we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection (newness of life, new creation, all things new, re-birth)" (Rom 6:5) by which is obviously meant that the unbaptized have no newness of life because they cannot be in the likeness of Christ's resurrection. Just as a seed cannot have new life as a plant until planted in the earth, a man can have no new life in Christ until planted into Christ and into Christ's death through baptism.]

"What about the salvation of the thief on the cross (Luke 23-39-43):
We know that he was saved WITHOUT baptism." The theif's knowledge of the kingdom, namely that it would be established after Christ's death, leads me to believe that he had previously been a disciple before turning away from Christ perhaps at some hard saying and going back to theivery. Thus, he most likely was baptized. You cannot prove that he wasn't. Even so, he was under the OT seeing as how the NT was not established until after Jesus' death. The thief even, unlike you, understood that the kingdom and NT would come after Christ's death.

[ January 10, 2003, 12:05 AM: Message edited by: SolaScriptura in 2003 ]

 

[BeeBee]

Hey Sola,

I must ask, however, if they were not offered by the Jews, would God have forgiven them?

The doctrine of salvation is no new thing (Acts 10:43).

Romans 4:3For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. 4Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. 5But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Abraham was justified by faith BEFORE he was circumcised:

Romans 4:10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.

".... the righteousness of faith which he had yet being uncircumcised.....(Rom.4:11)"

Abraham was 99 years old when he was circumcised (Gen. 17:24). This was BEFORE his son Issac was born, for Isaac was born when Abraham was a hundred years old (Gen. 21:5). So Abrahamhad the righteousness of faith before circumcision and also before Isaac was born. Likewise, he had the righteousness of faith before he offered Isaac on the altar, which was a DEMONSTRATION of his faith. Abraham had the righteousness of faith BEFORE the giving of the LAw. So Abraham recieved righteousness purely through faith. Thats where Paul steps in and tells us in the New Testament that we are saved in exactly the SAME way-- through righteousness recieved through faith:

Romans 4:23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; 24But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; 25Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification

Galatians 3:6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. 7Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.

Gal. 3:9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. 14That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. 18For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise. 22But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. 29And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

SALVATION BY FAITH

"He that believeth on him is not condemned..." (John 3:18

What your probably trying to say is what "purpose" were sacrifices or baptism. Well "Is Baptism Necessary"? Yes, baptism is necessary, just as all good works or acts of obedience are for "necessary uses" (Titus 3:14). Everything in the Bible is necessary to its use, but everything is not necessary to the same use. Water is necessary for baptism , but water is not necessary to EVERY other thing in the Bible. Bread is necessary to the Lord's Supper, but bread is not necessary to everything else. Everything has its "use" and "purpose". Good works have there "use" and "purpose", their "necessary uses". Campbellites would have you to believe that Baptists teach "Faith Only" and that good works have no use whatsoever. But such a charge carries its own refutation on its face: do you see BHaptists doing away with baptism,church,prayer,singing,giving,missionary work, bible reading, and the like? Of course not. What are the uses of good works then?
James says a man may profess to have faith. Of course, any one can say that, if he can talk, but James says he will "show" his faith by his works. When faith is born it is just as real 5,10,20 years later. But we only "see" one's faith by its visible evidences -- walking in the good works which God has ordained (Eph. 2:10) If a man professes faith, but does not walk in good works and show his faith, James says his faith is "dead." (James 2:20-26) Therefore , good works have the necessary "use" of demonstrating LIVING faith --- not creating faith, but only demonstrating.
Works have the same relationship to faith that effect has to cause, or that result has to source,. The cause produces the effect. Cause is necessary to effect as the source. The effect is necessary to the cause as the result.
So faith is necessary to good works as the cause, or source; good works are necessary to faith as the effect, or the result of living faith.

So I just want to conclude that Campbellites deny that faith is alive until one is baptized. They make baptism necessary to the life of faith itself. Faith, then is dependent upon baptism to give it its life. It is dead before baptism and comes to life after baptism, then baptism is the cause and faith is the effect. But if faith is dead before baptism it is condemned by James 2. The bible recognizes living faith as an act of obedience that is experienced before baptism.

Works are not the cause of faith,
Faith is the cause of works(Gal. 5:50

Even so, he was under the OT seeing as how the NT was not established until after Jesus' death. The thief even, unlike you, understood that the kingdom and NT would come after Christ's death.

Unlike me? I feel safer sticking with Paul and asserting that All have been saved by "Faith".

All me in ALL AGES are LAW BREAKERS
(sinners, Rom. 3:23)

No man was EVER saved by Law Keeping
(Rom 3:28; Gal. 2:16) for the simple reason no man was ever a law keeper.

CHRIST is the END of the LAW for righteousness in every age to every one who believes.
(Rom. 10:4;3:24-26;2 Cor. 5:21; Phil. 3:9)

Salvation by Grace all the way through.
Examples:

Before MOses: ABRAHAM Rom. 4

Under Moses DAVID Rom. 4

In Christs time: THE THIEF Luke 23

Since Christ: PAUL Phil. 1:9

Conclusion:
So if the thief was not saved by keeping the LAW, then he was saved by GRACE. Men today are saved the same way--- WITHOUT keeping the law as a condition for salvation.

P.S. Sola, I start school tommorow,which means I will not be on the computer much, but Ill try to respond to you later. I hope we can both benefit from this discussion, and come out with no ill feelings. God bless you,
Bobby C.

[ January 10, 2003, 01:24 AM: Message edited by: BeeBee ]

 

[Frank]

Bobby:

The word eis is not translated because of. The controversial meaning is, in fact, ABSENT from the divine text. A man may say there is a possiblity . However, the reality is that the word meaning because of is not used in the text you mentioned. Possibility and realtiy are two different things. Those works you mentioned are not actual translations, but paraphrases of the Greek text. There is a difference. The N.I.V., claims to be a translation. However, it is actually a paraphrase. It uses improper meanings in the tranalation of Sarcs and Psuche just to mention two blatant examples of ignoring the true meaning of the original words. If you would like to know why this happened ,just look at the resume of the board of " tranalators" and note their theological positions. Williams is a calvinist, therefore, he attemtps to use because of to support his position. A.T. Robertson, baptist/calvinist, said it best in regards to the meaning of eis when he stated that grammar must give way to theology. He denied eis meant for unto in Acts 2:38. However, he could not sustain his position with scholarship. Therefore, he chose his theology over the inspired text. This statement may be found in his book on Historical Greek Grammar.
Furthermore, The context and harmony of the scriptures will not allow for the meaning because of. SEE PREVIOUS POST.
The posting of Mat. 3:11 is understood perfectly when read in context, your contention not withstanding. A cardinal rule of interpretation is that a word must be understood in it's context. For example, A bear caught a salmon in the lake. Bear ye one another's burden and so fulfill the law of Christ. It is obvious a lexicon or dictionary cannot solve this problem of interpretation. Unless one examines the context, cross references the word for harmony of both the immediate and remote context, he cannot know which bear is in consideration in the respective text. However, the context will define it for him. This is the case if he uses rationality!

To my knowledge, the scholarship I listed is from Greek scholars who do not have a theological position to protect, with the exception of those designated as baptist in the post. This was done deliberately to avoid the accusation of bias on my part.
However, Hugo Mccord is, in my estimation, one of the finest scholars in our times. He is graduate of the baptist seminary in Louisville, Ky. He also translates the word Eis as for or unto. He is a gospel preacher, not a calvinist. There is a difference!

If a man did not know Greek could he learn the truth? I say yes! If he understands his native tongue and will study the context as well as all the material on a subject he can know the truth that sets us free. John 8:32.

It is sad that so many attempt to use unsound measures to defend an erroneous belief. This is the case with anyone who denies that baptism is a part of the obedient faith that accesses the grace of God that saves. I Peter 3;21, Gal. 3:26-29, Romans 16:26;6:17,18;5:1,2;Eph 2:8,9.