Honest Question for KJO

[Salty]

Acts 2:38 and Acts 22:16 seem to say that Baptism is required to complete your salvation.

Of course as Baptists, we disagree with that thinking.

Acts 2:38 states: "...Repent, and be baptized everyone... for the remission of Sins...
We are often taught that the word "for" should be translated as "because of"

So my questions -

1) Should the KJV translators have use the phrase "because of"?
2) Why did they use "for" Was it because they believe that baptism was required for salvation?

NOTE: I am not trying to trap anyone - just an honest answer so we can intelligently speak with those of the Roman Catholic church, Church of Christ and other faiths who believe in baptismal regeneration.

 

[Van]

As has been pointed out many times, whenever we see the word "baptism" we must determine if "water baptism" the ritual is in view or our "spiritual baptism" into Christ is in view. Obviously our spiritual baptism into Christ is in view at Acts 2:38, otherwise the person would have already received the Holy Spirit.

If we look at Acts 22:16 we see "water baptism" is in view, with water baptism being emblematic of our "spiritual baptism into Christ." Thus the water is emblematic of the spiritual washing of regeneration.

 

[Ziggy]

The KJV translators being Anglicans would hold baptism as a sacrament that included baptismal regeneration. That should explain their choice, no?

 

[Logos1560]

The KJV translators being Anglicans would hold baptism as a sacrament that included baptismal regeneration. That should explain their choice, no?

The problem for KJV-only advocates is that they do not want to acknowledge any Church of England bias affecting translation decisions in the KJV.

Perhaps a note concerning 1 Peter 3:21 made by one of the KJV translators would provide first-hand evidence of possible bias.

Ward Allen noted: "The revisers had intended that the reader understand, by the answer, the baptism vow; and certainly the meaning is clear once it has been pointed out. The subject of the verse is baptism, which 'doth also now save us.' The soul is not saved by 'the putting away the filth of the flesh.' Answer, then, is obliged to refer to the baptismal vow." (Translating for King James, Notes Made by a translator of King James's Bible, pp. 27-28).

 

[Yeshua1]

As has been pointed out many times, whenever we see the word "baptism" we must determine if "water baptism" the ritual is in view or our "spiritual baptism" into Christ is in view. Obviously our spiritual baptism into Christ is in view at Acts 2:38, otherwise the person would have already received the Holy Spirit.

If we look at Acts 22:16 we see "water baptism" is in view, with water baptism being emblematic of our "spiritual baptism into Christ." Thus the water is emblematic of the spiritual washing of regeneration.

Acts 2:38 refers to water baptism. but the main point is that the Person baptized into Himself the source of the remission of our sins!

 

[Yeshua1]

The KJV translators being Anglicans would hold baptism as a sacrament that included baptismal regeneration. That should explain their choice, no?

Wished that they would have just used immersed!

 

[Yeshua1]

The problem for KJV-only advocates is that they do not want to acknowledge any Church of England bias affecting translation decisions in the KJV.

Perhaps a note concerning 1 Peter 3:21 made by one of the KJV translators would provide first-hand evidence of possible bias.

Ward Allen noted: "The revisers had intended that the reader understand, by the answer, the baptism vow; and certainly the meaning is clear once it has been pointed out. The subject of the verse is baptism, which 'doth also now save us.' The soul is not saved by 'the putting away the filth of the flesh.' Answer, then, is obliged to refer to the baptismal vow." (Translating for King James, Notes Made by a translator of King James's Bible, pp. 27-28).

So they did tie that in baptismal regenerating? Why would Baptists continue to use Kjv if that is true?

 

[Van]

Acts 2:38 refers to water baptism. but the main point is that the Person baptized into Himself the source of the remission of our sins!

What nonsense. Those that say we must be water baptized to be sealed with the Holy Spirit have a deeply flawed understanding.

 

[Yeshua1]

What nonsense. Those that say we must be water baptized to be sealed with the Holy Spirit have a deeply flawed understanding.

Not saying that at all, but saying that it does refer to water baptism, but does not teach Baptismal regeneration in that passage!

 

[Van]

Not saying that at all, but saying that it does refer to water baptism, but does not teach Baptismal regeneration in that passage!

But since Acts 2:38 refers to spiritual baptism into Christ, where the washing of regeneration occurs, your post remains utter nonsense.

 

[Yeshua1]

But since Acts 2:38 refers to spiritual baptism into Christ, where the washing of regeneration occurs, your post remains utter nonsense.

refers to water baptism!

 

[Van]

refers to water baptism!

Right, water baptism results in receiving the Holy Spirit. Got it.
Those that say we must be water baptized to be sealed with the Holy Spirit have a deeply flawed understanding.

 

[Yeshua1]

Right, water baptism results in receiving the Holy Spirit. Got it.
Those that say we must be water baptized to be sealed with the Holy Spirit have a deeply flawed understanding.

I am not saying that, just that the passage refers to water baptism. but not in the way Oneness and Catholics would see it as meaning!

 

[Van]

I am not saying that, just that the passage refers to water baptism. but not in the way Oneness and Catholics would see it as meaning!

You are saying you must be water baptized to receive the Holy Spirit. Otherwise you would admit the baptism in view in Acts 2:38 is our spiritual baptism into Christ, where we are sealed with the Holy Spirit.

 

[Yeshua1]

You are saying you must be water baptized to receive the Holy Spirit. Otherwise you would admit the baptism in view in Acts 2:38 is our spiritual baptism into Christ, where we are sealed with the Holy Spirit.

No, am saying that peter was there referencing water baptism!

 

[Van]

No, am saying that peter was there referencing water baptism!

Absurdity on display, water baptism is not a prerequisite of receiving the Holy Spirit.

 

[Yeshua1]

Absurdity on display, water baptism is not a prerequisite of receiving the Holy Spirit.

never said it is, but peter is referencing water baptism there!

 

[rlvaughn]

Acts 2:38 and Acts 22:16 seem to say that Baptism is required to complete your salvation.

I guess my question is why this is not a question for almost every English Bible translation. For example, of all the English translations at Bible Gateway, most of them use "for" in Acts 2:38. The 2015 Amplified Bible is the only one (of those there) that uses "because of."

 

[Van]

never said it is, but peter is referencing water baptism there!

What a waste, Acts 2:38 is claimed by Y1 to refer to being water baptized "for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Utter nonsense, but the fount of falsehoods just keeps posting.

 

[Yeshua1]

What a waste, Acts 2:38 is claimed by Y1 to refer to being water baptized "for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Utter nonsense, but the fount of falsehoods just keeps posting.

The source of the forgiveness for sins and rebirth is Jesus Christ Himself, the One water Baptized into!