Acts 2:38 says baptism is not needed for forgiveness

  • Thread starter Thread starter Elzee
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

Elzee

Guest
My friend’s’ pastor says that when reading Acts 2:38, you should substitute the words ‘because of’ for the word ‘for’ to get the proper meaning, since baptism is not necessary for forgiveness (what their church teaches).

He said this is supported by the Greek text.

Therefore, the verse would read “…repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ **because of **the forgiveness of your sins…”

Can anyone help me refute his ‘Greek’ claim. It seems like a slick way to close an arugment for those of us who don’t know Greek.
 
The stated purpose for “repent” and “be baptized” in Acts 2: 38 has occasioned much discussion (eis aphesin ton hamarton humon). Some attempt to argue that “for” (the preposition eis) means “because of.” Hence, they were saved at the point of repentance prior to baptism and were to be baptized because they already had remission of sins. “Baptism is just a symbol of the salvation that has already happened,” we are told. However, the grammar and syntax of the verse does not support such a view. After discussing the Greek preposition en, meaning in, always taking the dative case (the “in case”), grammarian Machen in his celebrated grammar states, “the preposition eis (one used in Acts 2: 38, dm) meaning into, on the other hand always takes the accusative” (New Testament Greek for Beginners, pg. 40). Regarding the accusative case in Greek, Daniel Wallace stated, “It is primarily used to limit the action of a verb as to extent, direction, or goal” (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, pg. 178). The accusative case, simply stated, is the case of forward action. Hence, “for” (eis) in Acts 2: 38 means in order to, toward, into, or unto the forgiveness of sins. Remember that *kai * (“and”) joins “repent” and “be baptized” in Acts 2: 38 hence, what is said of one, is said of the other. Both repentance and baptism, then, reach forth to the obtaining of remission of sins (cp. Lk. 24: 47).
 
That’s the danger of taking one single verse from Holy Write and building a creed on it. What does the whole of the New Testament say about baptism?
 
That is why I would like to take a class on Biblical Greek.
 
40.png
Fidelis:
The stated purpose for “repent” and “be baptized” in Acts 2: 38 has occasioned much discussion (eis aphesin ton hamarton humon). Some attempt to argue that “for” (the preposition eis) means “because of.” Hence, they were saved at the point of repentance prior to baptism and were to be baptized because they already had remission of sins. “Baptism is just a symbol of the salvation that has already happened,” we are told. However, the grammar and syntax of the verse does not support such a view. After discussing the Greek preposition en, meaning in, always taking the dative case (the “in case”), grammarian Machen in his celebrated grammar states, “the preposition eis (one used in Acts 2: 38, dm) meaning into, on the other hand always takes the accusative” (New Testament Greek for Beginners, pg. 40). Regarding the accusative case in Greek, Daniel Wallace stated, “It is primarily used to limit the action of a verb as to extent, direction, or goal” (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, pg. 178). The accusative case, simply stated, is the case of forward action. Hence, “for” (eis) in Acts 2: 38 means in order to, toward, into, or unto the forgiveness of sins. Remember that *kai * (“and”) joins “repent” and “be baptized” in Acts 2: 38 hence, what is said of one, is said of the other. Both repentance and baptism, then, reach forth to the obtaining of remission of sins (cp. Lk. 24: 47).
Wow! Thank you. This is much more than I had hoped for. I have so much to learn.
 
If St. Luke had meant “because of” instead of “for” don’t we think that’s what he would have written to begin with?

That is an excellent example of Born-agian" proof texting. They decide what they will beleive first and then go looking for proof texts to back up their preconcieved notions. In this case they base their entire theology on “getting saved”, that is what comes first and everything else… even the scriptures (which seems odd for people claiming sola scriptura) has to fit in with that. So they change the scriptures to match their theology rather than the other way around.
 
40.png
boppysbud:
If St. Luke had meant “because of” instead of “for” don’t we think that’s what he would have written to begin with?

That is an excellent example of Born-agian" proof texting. They decide what they will beleive first and then go looking for proof texts to back up their preconcieved notions. In this case they base their entire theology on “getting saved”, that is what comes first and everything else… even the scriptures (which seems odd for people claiming sola scriptura) has to fit in with that. So they change the scriptures to match their theology rather than the other way around.
I agree, but I will need more that this type of discussion to try and convince her. Does anyone know how the King James version has this written? I would think that would be a translation she would rely on, and would be able to more readily accept that it is actually ‘for’ and not ‘because of’ (assuming that’s how the King James has it…?). I don’t think my RSV-CE will convince her…
 
perfectly illustrates the reasons why the reformers had to re-write scripture according their own agenda, which always comes ahead of the original inspired meaning, and drives the translation or interpretation. Modern day translators driven by inclusive language or other agendas commit the same errors.
 
Elzee: When anyone gives you “the ancient Greek really says . . .” argument, think of the early Church. Think ORIGINAL writings (and not Protestant “history” books), they are out there.

You stated “My friend’s’ pastor says that when reading Acts 2:38, you should substitute the words ‘because of’ for the word ‘for’ to get the proper meaning, since baptism is not necessary for forgiveness (what their church teaches).”

Ask your friend WHY the ancient Eastern Greek speaking Church never figured out your friend’s pastor’s interpretation. These Fathers didn’t have to go to Protestant seminary to learn Greek – It was their native language. This pastor’s “Greek” and “Baptism doctrine” is not congruent with the early Church Fathers as a whole and is not consistent with the Greek speaking Church Fathers in particular. Why is that?

Is the good pastor going to help the Greeks “learn” their own language?

“…repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ FOR the forgiveness of your sins…” (all cap. emphasis mine).

I suspect you are accurate when you said “It seems like a slick way to close an argument for those of us who don’t know Greek.” And I wouldn’t buy into it without substantial patristic evidence, which I don’t think he can produce (but even if he could, there are other verses that teach the same baptismal doctrine that he’d also have to deal with, not a topic for this thread though).
 
Elzee… the KJV puts it this way

“Then Peter said unto them, Repent and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ FOR the remission of sins,”

as we can see the only difference between that and the RSV ce is the addition of the word “unto”.

The difference between the RSV and the KJV does not amount to a hill of beans.
 
40.png
Elzee:
My friend’s’ pastor says that when reading Acts 2:38, you should substitute the words ‘because of’ for the word ‘for’ to get the proper meaning, since baptism is not necessary for forgiveness (what their church teaches).

He said this is supported by the Greek text.

Therefore, the verse would read"…repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ **because of **the forgiveness of your sins…"

Can anyone help me refute his ‘Greek’ claim. It seems like a slick way to close an arugment for those of us who don’t know Greek.
Is the pastor saying that the verse reads that we should be baptized because of the forgiveness of sins that we already have - that baptism is therefore an outward sign of the forgiveness/salvation/work of Christ already received?

If he is saying this, surely the command to repent would also be because of the forgiveness of sins already received. That would be the logically consistent way of dealing with the grammar.

In effect, Peter would be preaching and saying this: “God has already forgiven you. You are already forgiven. You are already set free and saved (or at least on the road to eternal salvation). Since God has already done this, you are commanded to repent of your sins as an outward sign. Just remember, you are forgiven and saved without repenting but are commanded to repent anyway”.

I haven’t gone into the Greek as others have done a good job with that - but if the pastor were right, it would probably lead to some serious problems for his theology.
 
40.png
asteroid:
Is the pastor saying that the verse reads that we should be baptized because of the forgiveness of sins that we already have - that baptism is therefore an outward sign of the forgiveness/salvation/work of Christ already received?

If he is saying this, surely the command to repent would also be because of the forgiveness of sins already received. That would be the logically consistent way of dealing with the grammar.
Yes - it’s my understanding that’s what he is saying. I agree grammatically it causes problems, but that is what he’s saying and teaching. Because of this interpretation, baptism is not necessary in their church - it’s encouraged (not sure why if this is really what they believe - that doesn’t make much sense to me now that I think about it) - but it’s only an outward sign of the inward transformation of being ‘born again’.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top