The Apostle Paul's referenes to Holy Spirit baptism

[Darron Steele]

Luke 24:47

47 and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations,
NKJV

It does not say repentance for remission of sins, that is you forcing your idea, the plain language says repentance AND remission of sins....

In the NKJV, you are right. It follows mostly the same Greek texts as the 1611 KJV, which represented the best scholars could do with the medieval manuscripts that had been collected up to 1611.

In the NASB, it follows Greek texts based on ancient Greek manuscripts. The oldest Greek manuscripts have equivalent for "for" as translated.

Jesus Christ ordained that “repentance for |remission of sins should be preached in his name” (NASB|KJV) at Luke 24:47.

I am not "forcing" anything. I am doing diligence with the Scriptures. If anything negative is to be said about either of our handlings of Scripture, I could say that you are being careless and sloppy. I bet you do not appreciate that. I did not appreciate your remark much better.

Again, Jesus Christ ordained that “repentance for |remission of sins should be preached in his name” (NASB|KJV) at Luke 24:47.

My position is that Peter did EXACTLY as Jesus Christ ordained at Acts 2:38, and the Greek of the verse, when
a) translated with precision that English does not easily allow,
b) following Greek rules of grammar,
seems to fit that: we repent for the remission of sins, and we have an obligation to be baptized.

 

[JSM17]

I am correcting myself after further study.

The word between Repentance and forgiveness of sins in Luke 24:47 is EIS and not KAI. So the best way to translate it would be with UNTO.

As for Acts 2:38

38 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.
NKJV
You cannot seperate repentance and baptism.

The statement is to be understood as it stands, let every one of you be baptized. To be baptized is for, unto, EIS the remission of sins.

You have the exact language in Matt 26:28

28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.NKJV

The Greek connects Repentance and baptism by the connector KAI, to seperate them is to do that in which the passage does not and that is forcing an idea that is not being spoken here.

 

[Darron Steele]

I am correcting myself after further study.

The word between Repentance and forgiveness of sins in Luke 24:47 is EIS and not KAI. So the best way to translate it would be with UNTO.

Excellent.

As for Acts 2:38

38 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.
NKJV
You cannot seperate repentance and baptism.

The statement is to be understood as it stands, let every one of you be baptized. To be baptized is for, unto, EIS the remission of sins....

You cannot treat Greek like English. When the Greek is translated with precision, the connection is between repentance and remission of sins.

That is what I found in reference works for years. I have also presented it in translation into a more precise language.

Peter did not disobey Jesus Christ at Acts 2:38. Jesus Christ ordained that “repentance for |remission of sins should be preached in his name” (NASB|KJV) at Luke 24:47. Peter preached that -- EXACTLY that.

We have an obligation to be baptized. That is inserted as a tangential command in the Greek text. However, when Jesus Christ ordained that “repentance for |remission of sins should be preached in his name” (NASB|KJV) at Luke 24:47, that was what was preached.

 

[Darron Steele]

Let us go back to what prompted this discussion of Acts 2:38.

Written to someone else:

...
My only issue is that Galatians shows that one receives the Promise of the H.S. because they are sons.

Other passages show the H.S. being received at different times.

Even Acts 2:38 shows this in a different sequence than Acts 10.

I am trying to harmonize the conversion accounts and they seem to different so which one applies today?

After I clarified that there was likely no discrepancy, causing the discussion on Acts 2:38, here was my reply:

...

As for how much to credence to grant the event of Acts 10 at Cornelius's home, keep in mind that the event was gone over THREE times in Acts: in Acts 10, in Acts 11, and in Acts 15. In the latter, a major church decision was made on the basis of it.

If the New Testament-era church made a major decision due to events of Acts 10, I think we ought to give it the same weight.

 

[JSM17]

You cannot treat Greek like English. When the Greek is translated with precision, the connection is between repentance and remission of sins.

That is what I found in reference works for years. I have also presented it in translation into a more precise language.

Peter did not disobey Jesus Christ at Acts 2:38. Jesus Christ ordained that “repentance for |remission of sins should be preached in his name” (NASB|KJV) at Luke 24:47. Peter preached that -- EXACTLY that.

We have an obligation to be baptized. That is inserted as a tangential command in the Greek text. However, when Jesus Christ ordained that “repentance for |remission of sins should be preached in his name” (NASB|KJV) at Luke 24:47, that was what was preached.

Because repentance is unto the forgiveness of sins does not remove other passages that speak of Baptism for the forgiveness of sins. There are many things that save in the N.T.

Holy Spirit baptism saves just like water saves 1 peter3:21; hence the new birth John 3:5.

Show me one english translation that agrees with you interpretation of the Greek, one credible translation that translates Acts 2:38 the way you say it should be translated.

Why is it that there are Greek scholars and critics that could not figure this out in our translations?


Any change in recent years would certainly declare that new manuscripts have been found, but they havn't. The musings of recent bibles have led many to translate this passage in a dishonest way.

You cannot treat Greek like English. When the Greek is translated with precision, the connection is between repentance and remission of sins.

That is what I found in reference works for years. I have also presented it in translation into a more precise language.

Do you know better than all these translators? Why did they all get it wrong, certainly if it is to be understood the way you say then they could have translated it thay way.

Maybe its not the fact that Acts2:38 and Luke24:47 differ, but maybe its because it is not being seen in the right light. Repentance in and of itself does not bring salvation it leads to (UNTO; EIS).

 

[Darron Steele]

...one credible translation that translates Acts 2:38 the way you say it should be translated.
....

I have; it was in Portuguese.

I could quote others as well into that language, but you will probably disregard those also as `not credible.'

The idea that foreign translations are somehow `not on the same par' as English translations is bigotry.

Not only is it bigotry, it is ignorance. Are you really so foolish as to think that foreign translators are not capable of producing Bible translations of equal "credibility"? If you really think that, you are both bigoted and ignorant.

I have been on the foreign mission field, and served with Portuguese-speaking Christians. I will not take such ignorant bigotry as a light matter. Those people have just as much intellectual potential as those in English-speaking regions.

If your attitude holds differently, I am not going to even dignify anything else you had to say in that post with a lengthy response. What you claim about other passages comes from a) reading into one of them something it does not say, and b) asserting what the other explicitly denies. No surprise, given the sentiment you posted above. If you want me to take you seriously as a person of any worthy intellect, you better reconsider that sentiment.

Translations into other languages, as a whole, are entirely worthy of being considered on the same plane as English translations.

 

[JSM17]

The Greek says repent and be baptized and both of them are connected to forgiveness of sins, I dont care what language you refer to if, it is not according to the Greek and is not translated right then it does not make a difference.

If any translation changes the meaning of the text then it is no good.

The original language does not say what you want it to. Go back and look at it again. You CANNOT seperate these two items. Break it down word for word and be honest about what you see.

If you do not want to do that then I will and I'll post it for you.

 

[Darron Steele]

...Break it down word for word and be honest about what you see and be honest about what you see.

...

How dare you!

I have been totally honest in how I handle the Scriptures.

Do you realize how much I have researched the various baptism questions? Do you think I have never closely analyzed Acts 2:38? I have gone word by word and thoroughly into the grammatical structures -- the latter you are avoiding. Greek grammatical rules do not match those of English; Greek cannot be treated like English, no matter how much you want to. The Portuguese translations handle the Greek of this verse more accurately than English translations do. Of course I have analyzed Acts 2:38 very closely, and a whole bunch of other relevant Scriptures.

Do you realize that I view the Scriptures as God's very written Word? I do not view it as a tool to win debates for some church group's favored precepts. I would never dare. The Bible is for better things than that, and means more than that.

So now you suggest that I would be anything other than honest. Exactly how much further are you going to take this?

You have already expressed a sentiment that non-English translations are `not credible' in comparison to English translations, necessarily implying that non-English translators have inferior intellectual potential.

Now you have the audacity to suggest that I would be anything other than honest!

Fact is, JSM17, it is not due to some sort of personal flaw that so many Christians do not hold the beliefs about baptism that you do. I realize that the Churches of Christ generally encourage you to think this way, but this does not make it right. You can allege all you want that those who disagree with you have some sort of personal flaw, but it just would not square with reality. Christians disagreeing with you on baptism's relationship to salvation is simply due to the realities of the Scriptures.

 

[JSM17]

Often used to get around Acts 2:38 is the argument that since the words "repent" and "be baptized" are different in both person and number in the original text, the phrase "for the remission of sins" cannot refer to both verbs.

In order to confirm the statement above several prodominate GREEK SCHOLARS were asked this question:

"Is it grammatically possible that the phrase 'eis aphesin hamartion,' 'for the remission of sins,' as used in Acts 2:38, expresses the force of both verbs, 'repent ye and be baptized each one of you,' even though these verbs differ in both person and number?"

The following men responded to the inquiry. Their qualifications are along with their response to the question.

Bruce Metzger was the editor of the Textual Commentary on The Greek New Testament, published by the United Bible Societies. He is currently teaching at Princeton Theological Seminary in New Jersey. He wrote, "In reply to your recent inquiry may I say that, in my view, the phrase 'eis aphesin hamartion' in Acts 2:38 applies in sense to both of the preceding verbs."

F. W. Gingrich was a professor of New Testament Greek at Albright College in Reading, Pennsylvania. Gingrich, along with William Arndt, published A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature in 1957. He wrote, "The difference in person and number of 'repent' and 'be baptized' is caused by the fact that 'repent' is a direct address in the second person plural, while 'be baptized' is governed by the subject 'every one of you' and so is third person singular. 'Every one of you' is, of course, a collective noun."

Arthur L. Farstad was the chairman of the New King James Executive Review Committee and general editor of the NKJV New Testament. The NKJV was translated by over 120 Greek scholars, many of whom teach in Baptist schools. He wrote, "Since the expression 'eis aphesin hamartion' is a prepositional phrase with no verbal endings or singular or plural endings. I certainly agree that grammatically it can go with both repentance and baptism. In fact, I would think that it does go with both of them."

John R. Werner is the International Consultant in Translation to the Wycliffe Bible Translators. He was also a consultant to Friberg and Friberg with the Analytical Greek New Testament. From 1962 to 1972 he was professor of Greek at Trinity Christian College. He said, "Whenever two verbs are connected by kai 'and' and then followed by a modifier (such as a prepositional phrase, as in Acts 2:38), it is grammatically possible that modifier modifies either both the verbs, or only the latter one. This is because there is no punctuation in the ancient manuscripts, so we don't know whether the author intended to pause between the first verb and the 'and.' It does not matter that, here in Acts 2:38, one of the verbs is second person plural ("y'all") and the other is third-person singular ("is to"). They are both imperative, and the fact that they are joined by kai 'and' is sufficient evidence that the author may have regarded them as a single unit to which his modifier applied."

[

 

[Darron Steele]

Can you cite where you got these?

I assume that I could locate them in print somewhere. I assume that if not, there is some sort of reputable site they came from?

Frankly, I am not inclined to accept the authenticity of these alleged quotations as presented. I have seen this material before, asked the person to refer me to the source/s, and got no reply. I am not accusing you of forging this material, but I do not accept the authenticity of these alleged quotes in the way they are presented.

I can refer you to Spiros Zodhiates WordStudy New Testament with Parallel Greek page 397 where he indicates the grammar connects just repentance with remission of sins.

However, I weary of this discussion over the language of the verse. It is going nowhere positive. I mean, you insulted the intellectual potential of a large portion of the world, as evidently translations into anything other than English are not "credible" to you.

It really comes down to this.

• Your original query, which brought up Acts 2:38, was evidently not quite as open as it appeared. I wasted my time even answering it. From the amount of attention you give each, it looks like you give more weight to Acts 2:38 than to the event shared by Acts 10/11/15. As is evident from Scripture, the New Testament-era church placed great weight on the latter event, because they made a major decision based on it.

• If Acts 2:38 means what you claim it does, then Peter quickly disobeyed Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ ordained at Luke 24:47 "repentance for| remission of sins should be preached in his name" (NASB|KJV). Peter would have disobeyed Him the very first time he preached.

• Further, as it is your apparent position that no believer is saved unless s/he arises from baptism, then there is no reason to believe Scripture. Acts 10:43 says of Jesus Christ "everyone that believeth on him |receives| remission of sins" (ASV|ESV|ASV). If your view is correct, then this passage is false, and there is no reason to believe Scripture on the matter of salvation.

I am open to neither of the latter two premises.

This Christian is baptized. This Christian believes very strongly that Christians ought to be baptized. I believe Scripture suggests that anyone who knows that s/he is not baptized and prefers to avoid baptism is a rebel against Christ. Christians ought to be baptized because the Lord said so. Even so, the Scriptures would not allow me to assert that baptism is a cause for salvation, or that there is any scenario where a believer on Jesus Christ can be unsaved.

 

[JSM17]

I assume that I could locate them in print somewhere. I assume that if not, there is some sort of reputable site they came from?

Frankly, I am not inclined to accept the authenticity of these alleged quotations as presented. I have seen this material before, asked the person to refer me to the source/s, and got no reply. I am not accusing you of forging this material, but I do not accept the authenticity of these alleged quotes in the way they are presented.

The letters can be viewed, they are photo copies of the correspondance.

The authenticity is there they are the actual letters.

If you mean forge in the way of writing made up material just to debate, that is not the case. If you mean forge as in I used them without permission I am not reproducing them for profit, I am using them to show you that these reputable Greek scholars do not agree with you. These are real Greek scholars, who responded to a brother of mine which can be reviewed at this site as well.

The link will take you directly to the letters, they are found on pages 4-9 at:

www.padfield.com/acrobate/handouts/remission-of-sins.pdf

I'm aware of Spiros Zodhiates; I have one of his books and have looked into some of his writings. The only problem I see is that this verse "Acts 2:38" is simple Greek. Two people with different views of the Greek cannot both be correct, either one is right and the other is wrong or they are both wrong.I will stand on the majority of scholars. Greek cannot always be translated in more than one way in certain cases and this is one of those cases.

This is simple language, if it should have been translated differently then it would have been, but every english translation with good credit translates it just as it should be.

I certainly was not implying that english translations were the only good translations, but English is my main language.

I meant no disrespect to you about being honest, I place the same standard upon myself, I have looked honestly at what you have said, but the Greek does not lie, it is either one way or the other, not both. Since a majority of those who know more about the Greek language than I do and even possibly you, then I agin state that I will trust that they know what it says.

I will try to be more careful with my words not to offend you, please accept my apology for offending you.

 

[Darron Steele]

The letters can be viewed, they are photo copies of the correspondance.

The authenticity is there they are the actual letters.

If you mean forge in the way of writing made up material just to debate, that is not the case. If you mean forge as in I used them without permission I am not reproducing them for profit, I am using them to show you that these reputable Greek scholars do not agree with you. These are real Greek scholars, who responded to a brother of mine which can be reviewed at this site as well.

The link will take you directly to the letters, they are found on pages 4-9 at:

www.padfield.com/acrobate/handouts/remission-of-sins.pdf

I appreciate you giving me the link. I figured that someone had concocted these quotes, and you accepted them as authentic. This makes it look more likely that they are the real thing.

I realize that these are real Greek scholars. So were/are the Bible translators responsible for major Portuguese translations, which you `blew off' designating them as not "credible."

I'm aware of Spiros Zodhiates; I have one of his books and have looked into some of his writings. The only problem I see is that this verse "Acts 2:38" is simple Greek. Two people with different views of the Greek cannot both be correct, either one is right and the other is wrong or they are both wrong.I will stand on the majority of scholars. Greek cannot always be translated in more than one way in certain cases and this is one of those cases.....

Well, evidently it can be.

I am multi-lingual. I understand when a statement can be translated multiple ways accurately. One of those may not be what the author/speaker intended, but it would not mean that the translation itself is not accurate.

Here at Acts 2:38, we have a case where obviously, more than one accurate translation is possible. You might not want to accept the validity of one of them, but that does not make it `go away.'

In any case where I am given multiple possible ways of understanding a passage, I only consider those which do not create direct contradictions with explicit statements elsewhere.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I appreciate your unquoted apologies of a more personal nature. It is just that
1) I get tired of seeing people treat foreign translations like they are worthless,
2) I get tired of seeing Church of Christ polemicists call everyone who will not agree with them `liars' and the like.
Perhaps I read more into your comments than was there.

On another personal note, I have to wonder what you are doing here with regards to baptism. The reason I say that is because your main work here is pushing baptism. This is a Baptist board; most members are Baptists. To be eligible for full standing in Baptist churches, you have to be baptized. I dare say that most members here are baptized. Therefore, I wonder why you push baptism so hard -- most members here have had it already.

 

[JSM17]

Being baptized for the right reason is essential to obedience unto the LORD.
As for ingnoring your posts about the Portuguese translation I have not done that. I looked at it and still conclude that they had to translate it from the Greek just like everyone else.
I do not think you are a liar I think this is just another case where people are searching for the truth.
God saves those who obey Him, if I believe that those who have not been baptized for the remmission of their past sins have not obeyed God, then if I fail to preach such then I am not being obedient.
Because we view those things different then of course it will be a main area where I will do a lot of talking.
The reason for posting on this forum is two fold, baptists are compassion about what they believe unlike many other denominations and secondly most do not believe that to be born again of water and Spirit means baptism and the Holy Spirit, which I see as being required by God. For me it is the summation of all scriptures. Water baptism serves a purpose as well as Spirit baptism. I look at this as the new birth, to which those who have not been born again cannot see the kingdom of God. I look at the reasoning of John 3:5 in explaining the water to refer to the Spirit and do not see that.
I do not claim to have all truth. I do not claim that the COC has all truth, but we can be certain that God has revealed the truths that are needed to obey Him in intitial salvation.
I understand that many of my brethren have left a bad taste in the mouths of many, but we are all human just like the rest of the world.
There are those on this forum who handle their doctrine in a like manner as many of my brethren. But I understand that sometimes compassion leads to emotions that lead people to think that they are haters or very bitter.
I might even have some of that in me, to which I am trying to get beyond. Like I have said in many posts before this one, many of the COC folks do not agree with many of the things I believe. But one thing I cannot get beyond is how important baptism for the remission of our past sins really is.

Since I have moved away from the original post which is in reference to Paul and the baptism of the Holy Spirit, I would like to see how you view Paul's conversion. The original poster on this thread believes that the Jews were saved in a different manner than the Gentiles, Paul was a Jew who was saved the same way those in Acts 2:38 as I believe all are saved.

I believe that Paul was saved in obedience to those things that were told to him. Just as Peter proclaimed as well. Acts 22:16 is either misleading or states the truth that Paul was baptized to wash away his sins. So he was not saved on the road to Damascus as many proclaim, in fact in other passages it is seen that he did not recieve the Holy Spirit until three days after the road experience.

Look forward to hearing what you think.

 

[Darron Steele]

I apologize that you waited so long.

Being baptized for the right reason is essential to obedience unto the LORD.

For "the right reason"? What exactly do you mean?

...
The reason for posting on this forum is two fold, baptists are compassion about what they believe unlike many other denominations and secondly most do not believe that to be born again of water and Spirit means baptism and the Holy Spirit, which I see as being required by God. For me it is the summation of all scriptures.

Problem with this reply: most Baptists are baptized!

This does not really answer my question. Most Baptists are baptized. To have full standing in a Baptist congregation, a person has to be baptized
a) by immersion,
b) after conversion.
You pushing baptism on Baptists seems strange to me: most adult Baptists are baptized.

Since I have moved away from the original post which is in reference to Paul and the baptism of the Holy Spirit, I would like to see how you view Paul's conversion. ...

Here we go:

Act 9:1 But Saul, yet breathing threatening and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest,
Act 9:2 and asked of him letters to Damascus unto the synagogues, that if he found any that were of the Way, whether men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.
Act 9:3 And as he journeyed, it came to pass that he drew nigh unto Damascus: and suddenly there shone round about him a light out of heaven:
Act 9:4 and he fell upon the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
Act 9:5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest:
Act 9:6 but rise, and enter into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do. (ASV)​

Paul said "Who art thou, Lord" but did not know it was Jesus Christ. He had not yet accepted Jesus Christ as Lord, although he evidently was now open to the possibility.

Here is more detail:

Act 26:16 But arise, and stand upon thy feet: for to this end have I appeared unto thee, to appoint thee a minister and a witness both of the things wherein thou hast seen me, and of the things wherein I will appear unto thee;
Act 26:17 delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom I send thee,
Act 26:18 to open their eyes, that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan unto God, |“para que reciban, por la fe que es en mí, remisión de pecados y suerte entre los santificados” (RVR 1909) = “in order
that they-might-receive, by the faith that is in me, remission of sins and lot among the sanctified.” (ASV|RVR 1909 and translated).​

Paul was appointed to preach that the Gentiles would be saved by faith upon Jesus Christ.

Here is more about after the Lord spoke to Paul.

Act 22:13 came unto me, and standing by me said unto me, Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And in that very hour I looked up on him.
Act 22:14 And he said, The God of our fathers hath appointed thee to know his will, and to see the Righteous One, and to hear a voice from his mouth.
Act 22:15 For thou shalt be a witness for him unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard.
Act 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? |Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sinnes, in calling on the Name of the Lord (ASV|GenB).​

Paul had evidently not done "calling on the Name of the Lord" to remove his sins.

Up to this moment, Paul was not a believer. He had probably assented to the fact that Jesus is Lord, but not become a believer.

A reference was made to Joel 2:32 quoted in Romans 10:13b “Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved” (ASV).

He needed to appeal to Jesus Christ as Lord and as the Savior from his sins. It was time for Paul to do that. As he did so, it was time for him to be baptized.

Ancient Jews saw conversion baptism as showing `washing away’ prior life to match earlier conversion,* so as a Jew, it was time for Paul to confirm his conversion to Christ by getting baptized to show his `washing away' of his prior life of sin.

___
*So That’s Why! Bible, page 1287.

 

[JSM17]

For "the right reason"? What exactly do you mean?

Baptized for the remission of sins Acts 2:38.

Problem with this reply: most Baptists are baptized!

This does not really answer my question. Most Baptists are baptized. To have full standing in a Baptist congregation, a person has to be baptized
a) by immersion,
b) after conversion.
You pushing baptism on Baptists seems strange to me: most adult Baptists are baptized.

Not for the remission of sins. It is imposssible to have your forgiven before baptism if baptism is for the forgiveness of sins. To be added to the Christ's church one must be baptized: Acts 2:41

41 Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them.
NKJV

Here we go:
Act 9:1 But Saul, yet breathing threatening and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest,
Act 9:2 and asked of him letters to Damascus unto the synagogues, that if he found any that were of the Way, whether men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.
Act 9:3 And as he journeyed, it came to pass that he drew nigh unto Damascus: and suddenly there shone round about him a light out of heaven:
Act 9:4 and he fell upon the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
Act 9:5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest:
Act 9:6 but rise, and enter into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do. (ASV)
Paul said "Who art thou, Lord" but did not know it was Jesus Christ. He had not yet accepted Jesus Christ as Lord, although he evidently was now open to the possibility.

Most people say that Saul was saved on the road to Damascus, I think you are saying that he was not saved on the road, is this correct?

Paul had evidently not done "calling on the Name of the Lord" to remove his sins.

I looked through the concordance I did not fined a passage that says this (to remove his sins), the closest one is Romans 10:13 which is from Joel 2:32, which is also found in Acts 2:21. To which they called upon the name of the Lord the very way Peter told them to in Acts 2:38 which is the very thing that Ananias told Paul to do when he said:Acts 22:16

16 And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.'
NKJV
anastas baptisai kai apolousai tas hamartias sou
This would literally be translated "Rise up, be baptized and wash away your sins." The word "apoluo" conveys the concept of procuring cleansing through an act of washing. That washing would be a reference to the act of baptism. Both "baptize" and "wash away" appear as 1st Aorist Imperatives (2nd person singular), and they are connected by "kai." Thus, the two are inseparably linked together in this grammatical construction.

Paul is commanded to rise up and cleanse himself of his sins via the washing of baptism.

"…calling on the name of the Lord" (epikalesamenos to onoma autou). The word "calling" (epikalesamenos) is nominative case, singular in number, masculine in gender, participle, aorist 1 in tense, and middle voice (The Analytical Greek Lexicon, pg. 157). The participle form (the "ing") shows ongoing action and a relationship to baptism and the middle voice indicates that this is something the subject (Saul or Paul) is doing to benefit himself.


F. F. Bruce interprets the act of "calling on the name of the Lord" as "being baptized 'in the name' (or 'with the name') of Jesus in the sense of 2:38; 10:48." F.F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, revised edition (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988), 418.

Baptists do not believe that baptism is for the forgiveness of their sins. This is why I talk about it.

 

[Darron Steele]

...
Baptists do not believe that baptism is for the forgiveness of their sins. ...

With good reason.

First of all, "for" in English does not necessarily mean `with the intention of getting in exchange' because "for" in our language has multiple meanings. Sometimes it expresses doing something in order to get a result unknown to the doer. A junior high athlete may not know that the intended result for many of the drills the coach requires, but the athlete still gets those results if s/he does them. Many times, my students do not know why I have them doing something, until they do it and I make my point: most of the time, the point goes `click' in their heads anyway. Further, the `with the intention of getting in exchange' would be totally discordant with major Spanish translations, which use "para" instead of "por." Really, even English "for" here is not to be understood as `with the intention of getting in exchange.'

Second, as explained before, if a believer on Jesus Christ is not saved unless s/he is baptized, then that means a believer on Jesus Christ who remains unbaptized will not receive remission of sins, and Acts 10:43 "everyone that believeth on him |receives| remission of sins" (ASV|ESV|ASV) is bogus.

You can quote Scriptures and make inferences on them to `fill in' what they do not actually say but which fits your views. However, there is just no way to get out of the contradiction your position creates.

Either
a) your position is right, and Scripture is untrustworthy, or
b) your position is wrong, and the Scriptures commend themselves to be believed.
I will take `option' b every time.

 

[JSM17]

Either
a) your position is right, and Scripture is untrustworthy, or
b) your position is wrong, and the Scriptures commend themselves to be believed.
I will take `option' b every time.

You say this and then use one passage to declare that I am wrong just because it says in Acts 10:43 "everyone that believeth on him |receives| remission of sins"

This is not the only passage that talks about remission of sins.

Did you took at the grammar of Acts 22:16, because you made no response to it, just like you did not say much about the fact that a majority of Greek scholars do not agree with you on Acts 2:38, you mentioned one who (Zodhiates) agrees with you (Does he really?), then he is in the minority. The Greek is not that sloppy to where Scholars can make up stuff and new rules of understanding.

You can quote Scriptures and make inferences on them to `fill in' what they do not actually say but which fits your views. However, there is just no way to get out of the contradiction your position creates.

This is an assumtion on your part. I did not one day say to myself I think that I will believe these things then I will find scripture to uphold them, on the contrary it was the complete opposite. Your doctrine of salvation by faith alone motivated you to see all passages in the light of your presuppositions.

When I read a passage like:
Mark 16:16

16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.
NKJV
I do not have to explain it away or say it refers to something else other than what the Lord caommanded in the Great commission. (c.f. Mathew 28:16-20, Luke 24:44-49)

First of all, "for" in English does not necessarily mean `with the intention of getting in exchange' because "for" in our language has multiple meanings.

We are not dealing with english we are dealing with GREEK.

Here is what Zodhiates thinks of the word "For":

"The preposition "for" in the phrase "for the remission of sins" in Greek is eis (1519), "unto." Literally, it means "for the purpose of identifying you with the remission of sins." Zodhiates

Definition of EIS:

Eis (g1519) ice; a prim. prep.; to or into (indicating the point reached or entered), of place, time, or (fig.) purpose (result, etc.); also in adv. phrases: - [abundant-] ly, against, among, as, at, [back-] ward, before, by, concerning, / continual, / far more exceeding, for [intent, purpose], fore, / forth, in (among, at, unto, -so much that, - to), to the intent that, / of one mind, / never, of, (up-) on, / perish, / set at one again, (so) that, therefore (-unto), throughout, till, to (be, the end, - ward), (here-) until (-to), . . . ward, [where-] fore, with. Often used in composition with the same general import, but only with verbs (etc.) expressing motion (lit. or fig.).

This word always looks forward never backwards!

I would like you to comment on what Zodhiates had to say about the word "FOR".

 

[DHK]

Being baptized for the right reason is essential to obedience unto the LORD.
As for ingnoring your posts about the Portuguese translation I have not done that. I looked at it and still conclude that they had to translate it from the Greek just like everyone else.
I do not think you are a liar I think this is just another case where people are searching for the truth.
God saves those who obey Him, if I believe that those who have not been baptized for the remmission of their past sins have not obeyed God, then if I fail to preach such then I am not being obedient.

Then Paul preached a different gospel than you did, and,
if you preach a different gospel than Paul preached according to the Bible you are accursed. So let's see what Paul said about the gospel:

1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
--Paul puts a distinct difference between baptism and the gospel. There is so much difference that the baptism is relatively unimportant in comparison to the gospel. Note I didn't say it was unimportant. I said compared to the gospel it was unimportant. Therefore Paul says: "Christ sent me not to baptize." Isn't that an amazing statement. Christ sent him to preach the gospel, but not to baptize. There is only one conclusion one can make from that statement. Paul believed that baptism had nothing to do with salvation. In fact he didn't even baptize those that he led to the Lord!!

We know that Paul preached the gospel wherever he went.
1 Corinthians 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

1 Corinthians 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

1 Corinthians 2:2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

1 Corinthians 15:1-4 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
--Simply put the gospel, by which you are saved is: Christ died, was buried, and rose again, for you, to pay the penalty for your sins. Baptism has no part in this message. Paul explains this message here in its simplest form in these four verses.

Now take a look here:
Galatians 1:8-9 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

The gospel that you preach is different than the gospel that Paul preaches. Paul calls the person that preaches your gospel accursed.

 

[Darron Steele]

Either
a) your position is right, and Scripture is untrustworthy, or
b) your position is wrong, and the Scriptures commend themselves to be believed.
I will take `option' b every time.

You say this and then use one passage to declare that I am wrong just because it says in Acts 10:43 "everyone that believeth on him |receives| remission of sins" ....

Are you serious?

Emphasis mine: "JUST because it says in Acts 10:43 `everyone that believeth on him |receives| remission of sins" (ASV|ESV|ASV)? What it says speaks explicitly and directly to this question.

How could I conclude any differently than what I posted? You deny that `everyone that believeth on him |receives| remission of sins.' Your position is that unless a person who believes on Jesus Christ gets baptized, s/he will not be saved, meaning s/he dies in sins.

This means that, if you are right, there are believers on Jesus Christ who do not receive remission of sins. This would mean that NOT everyone that believes on Jesus Christ receives remission of sins. Therefore, Acts 10:43 would have to be totally bogus.

You may not see it, but there is no way out of it. You can pile on other Scripture passages, make inference on them to `fill in' what they do not say, but which would bolster your position. Still, that contradiction would not go away.

You insist that I am the one who needs to substantiate my position. I am not. For now, I am no longer going to give much heed to your `What about this passage, what about that passage, what about this other, and yet this other' and on and on and on. I have dealt lightly with a few of those already, but do not plan to indulge you further. No passage explicitly states your position -- you are totally dependent upon human inference of a few passages. YOU are the individual who needs to substantiate how your position can be right when there is an explicit statement of Scripture that speaks directly against it.

There is no way that your human inferences of Scripture can possibly be correct if they are incompatible with an explicit statement of Scripture. For you to convince me that your human inferences of other portions of Scripture even might be valid, you need to deal directly with this explicit statement of Scripture and show how your position is not directly contrary to it. It is past time for you to attempt to do so.

So far, all you have done is try to divert us away to other passages and your human inferences of them. `Out of sight, out of mind' may be true at times, but `Out of sight, out of mind, out of existence' is never true. The explicit statement of Scripture that speaks against your position is not going away.

The Bible is true. What it explicitly states is true. Acts 10:43 says of Jesus Christ `everyone that believeth on him |receives| remission of sins" (ASV|ESV|ASV). My position is exactly that: EVERYONE who believes on Jesus Christ -- baptized or not, whatever or not -- receives remission of sins. If my position on this is direct from an explicit statement of Scripture, which it is, then it is true because the Bible is true.

 

[JSM17]

YOU are the individual who needs to substantiate how your position can be right when there is an explicit statement of Scripture that speaks directly against it.

Acts 10:43

43 To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins."
NKJV


Mark 16:16

16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.
NKJV

You harmonize these passages. Then accuse me again of doing something I am not doing. Scripture must agree with scripture it does not have to agree with me or you but with itself!

You have made no comments on the points on Acts 2:38 on the Greek scholars that do not agree with you and have made no comment on Acts 22:16 on the Greek grammar.

Instead you just accuse me by using another passage that we are not dealing with in detail. I understand what the passage says in Acts 10:34, but this is not talking about a normative case, show me a passage were people received the H.S. in the like manner Cornelious did. The only one you will find is the Apostles on the Day of Pentecost, so do we conclude that the Apostles were not save until they received the H.S. as well.

It is intersting that I am accused of what you are really doing, you take every simply stated passage that does teach baptism to remise sins or wash away sins and try to force an idea into that is not there. It cannot just mean what is says but has to be forced into agreeing with you. So Acts 2:38 and Acts 22:16 still stand as being simply stated passages that show what the purpose of water baptism is, and the Greek authorities agree with me.

I tell you what, I am enjoying this discussion very much, but it seems that you are getting aggravated with me and accusing me of being dishonest just I did with you. So let us assume that we are both searching for truth and we are both wanting to be honest about how we look at scripture.

We were ok with using other scripture or talking about other scripture until we came to a point on Acts 2:38 were a majority of Greek scholars did not agree with you. Realy even Zodhiates does not agree with you or himself, do to the change in his statements from one text to another based on the word EIS in one location which changed meaning in another location (which it didn't) yet has the same grammatical set up, other Greek scholars have noticed this. I suggested that we move back to Paul and talk about his conversion, you were all right with that until I pointed out the Greek does not agree with you. So you use Acts 10:43 instead of dealing with the points made. Know you say your not going to deal with any other passage that I bring up?

You stopped dealing with Acts 2:38 and you ignored the Greek references to Acts 22:16, so what are we going to talk about, just Acts 10:43?

We have not even begun to look at baptism, and I will probably not be able to do so because it does not agree with a majority on this forum, but that is ok it does not change the fact of dealing with those passages.

Always everytime I look to stick with one passage or even two passages that talk about baptism everone wants to run to their passage to disprove the passage talking about baptism with a passge that does not deal directly with a passage that speaks about it.

How about dealing with what we set out to deal with , at least to this point let us finish talking about Acts 22:16 and its Greek force and the truth of the passage.