BAPTISM

The Roman Catholic says: “He that is baptized shall be saved without faith”

The Protestant says: “He that believes shall be saved without baptism”

Jesus Christ said: “He who believes and is baptized shall be saved” (Mk 16:16)

The word “eis” in Acts 2:38 does not mean “because of”. A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament by Thayer tells us the meaning of this word. Joseph Henry Thayer, who was the Bussey Professor of the New Testament in the Divinity School of Harvard University says concerning this Phrase, “for the remission of sins”, found in Acts 2:38: “eis aphesin hamartion, to obtain the remission of sins, Acts 2:38.” (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament by Joseph Henry Thayer, Page 94). There is no doubt that this eminent scholar believed that “eis” in Acts 2:38 means, “to obtain”. Now, that is actually what Thayer had to say about it with the exact reference from his Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament with the exact page number where even those who do not understand Greek can find his words and read them. Now in this quotation it is obvious to any reader that he gives the meaning of the Greek word “eis” a sense completely contrary to what many have claimed. In other words he says that it means “to obtain” while they prefer that read “because of”.

The exact same words and grammar and syntax found in Acts 2:38 is also found in Matthew 26:28. In Matthew 26:28 we are told, “For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for (eis) the remission of sins.” In Acts 2:38 we read, “Acts 2:38

Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for (eis) the remission of sins.” Anyone can see that the two phrases “unto (eis) remission of sins” are identical in English. They are also identical in the Greek. In Greek both passages read, “eis apheisen harmartion”. It is exactly the same and the word eis has the same meaning in both passages. In Matthew 26:28 we are told that Christ blood was shed “for (eis) the remission of sins.” Now who is ready to claim that Christ shed his blood “because” our sins were already remitted? Christ shed his blood clearly “in order to obtain” remission of our sins and this exact same phraseology is used when speaking of repentance and baptism. We are to repent in order to obtain remission of our sins not “because“ our sins have been remitted without repentance. And we are also to be baptized according to this verse for the same reason. We are baptized “to obtain” to use Thayer’s exact words, the remission of sins. And while they claim that the word “eis” can be translated “because of” in Acts 2:38, it is indeed interesting that they cannot find a single reputable translation that so translates it.

Do tell us how you would translate this Greek word “eis” in Matthew 26:28? And if you would translate it differently than the way you claim it could be translated in Acts 2:38, please explain the reason since both phrases are exactly identical in the Greek and English New Testaments. If you believe that Matthew 26:28 means, “to obtain” and Acts 2:38 means “because of” please explain why. The phrase under consideration is, “eis aphesin hamartion” It is exactly the same words, syntax, tense, mood, and grammar in both places. There is no difference whatsoever but unless you translate it the same way in both passages you will have it as a "causal" sense in one place and a “resultant" sense in the other. And if you translate this word differently in these two verses we will expect you to explain how you arrived at completely different conclusions concerning the exact same phraseology in two different places.

Matt 26:28, “for (eis) remission of sins” (eis aphesin hamartion)

Acts 2:38, “for (eis) remission of sins” (eis aphesin hamartion)

Same phrase, same grammar, same syntax, and same words, but different meanings? Many people would translate the word differently for absolutely no better reason than the simple fact that in one place it does not fit their favorite theology and in the other place it does.

Do you translate “eis” in Matthew 26:28 the same way that you would like to have it translated in Acts 2:38? In Acts 2:38 we read, “repent and be baptized, every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for (eis) the remission of sins and you SHALL receive the gift of the Holy Spirit”. The Greek word “kai” is a coordinating conjunction. And functions like our English word “and” which connects items of equal rank in a sentence. Whatever “eis” means in reference to baptism it also means in reference to repentance. Now no one is told anywhere in the New Testament to repent “because” his or her sins have been remitted. But if your view of “eis” in this passage were correct then it would be necessary to conclude that we are to repent “because” our sins have been remitted. Which is contrary to the teaching of Acts 3:19 which says, “repent therefore and be converted that your sins may be blotted out.” Thus we repent in order to have our sins blotted out. So which is it? Does “eis” mean “because of” in reference to baptism and in the exact same time and place and grammatical construction does “eis” mean “in order to" in reference to repentance? For this word cannot have two meanings in the same place and grammatical connection.

Do you believe that these Jews on the day of Pentecost were told to “REPENT AND BE BAPTIZED” for (eis) because their sins were remitted or do you believe that they were told to “REPENT AND BE BAPTIZED” “in order to obtain” the remission of sins. Or is it possible that you are asking us to believe that they were told to “repent” in order to the remission of sins AND be baptized “because of the remission of sins?" Pick one. For surely it must be at least one of these three cases. Which one do you believe is the truth using the Greek words, syntax, and grammar of this sentence? It is definitely true that whatever “eis” means in reference to “repentance” it also means in reference to “baptism.” It cannot GRAMMATICALLY have one meaning in reference to “REPENTANCE” and a completely opposite meaning in reference to “BAPTISM” in the same sentence and the same connection using the same rules of grammar.

The great scholars who have translated the word of God for us just did not hold your view of the use of this word in its grammatical connection in Acts 2:38, now did they?

Here are some quotes from various recognized scholars for all to consider when studying Acts 2:38 and the meaning of the Greek term ‘eis’ in relation to repentance and baptism for remission of sins. Joseph Henry Thayer, who was the Bussey Professor of the New Testament in the Divinity School of Harvard University says concerning this Phrase, “for the remission of sins”, found in Acts 2:38 and I quote him as follows: “ eis aphesin hamartion, to obtain the remission of sins, Acts 2:38.”(A Greek- English Lexicon of the New Testament by Joseph Henry Thayer, Page 94.) There is no doubt that this eminent scholar believed that “eis” in Acts 2:38 means, “to obtain”.

In his “Commentary on Acts” Hackett, who was a highly regarded scholar among the Baptist, has said the following concerning the phrase “for remission of sins” in Acts 2:38: “Eis aphesin hamartion”, in order to the forgiveness of sins (Matt 26:28; Lk 3:3), we connect naturally with both the preceding verbs. This clause states the motive or object, which should induce them to repent and be baptized. It enforces the entire exhortation, not one part of it to the exclusion of the other.”

Dr. J. W. Wilmarth, another Baptist scholar of high reputation among the Baptist, says concerning those who interpret the Greek word “eis” as “on account of” which is equivalent to those who translate it as “because of” the following: “This interpretation compels us either to do violence to the construction or to throw the argument or course of thought in the context into complete confusion. Indeed, we can hardly escape the latter alternative, even if we chose the former. (a) For those who contend for the interpretation “on account of remission” will hardly be willing to admit that Peter said, “repent” as well as “be baptized on account of remission of sins.” This is too great an inversion of natural sequence. Yet to escape it we must violently dissever “repent” and “be baptized”, and deny that “eis” expresses the relation of “metanoesate” as well as “baptistheto” to “eis aphesin hamartion”. But the natural construction connects the latter with both the preceding verbs. It “enforces the entire exhortation, not one portion of it to the exclusion of the other,” as Hackett says.”

According to D. A. Penwick, Professor of classical languages, University of Texas, says, “Normally ‘eis’ looks forward, and I know of no case in the New Testament where it looks back” Robinson says, “with adjuncts marking the object and effect of the rite of baptism; chiefly ‘eis’ c. acc/ to baptize or be baptized into a thing…”

Mr. Winer recognized as being one of the greatest Greek grammarians who ever lived says of this word in Acts 2:38: “the purpose and end in view” Acts 2:38. Thus the purpose and end in view of repentance and baptism according to this scholar is the remission of sins.

H. A. W. Meyer, a German scholar, “Eis denotes the object of the baptism which is the remission of guilt contracted in the state before repentance.”

Charles B. Williams, Baptist Translator of the New Testament and student of Edgar J. Goodspeed, had this to say in the Williams translation of the New Testament, “that your sins may be forgiven” Acts 2:38.

Olshausen says, “Baptism is accompanied with the remission of sins, ‘eis aphesin hamartion’ as a result.

Carl H. Morgan, who was Dean of Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary said, “I do not know of any Greek Lexicon which gives to ‘eis’ the meaning of ‘because of’.” Now can anyone bring a single, recognized Greek – English Lexicon, which gives to ‘eis’, Acts 2:38, the meaning of “because of”?

Now, the above quotations are just a few of many scholars that tell us that the Greek word ‘eis’ DOES NOT MEAN “because of”. The inescapable conclusion that Peter told us by inspiration of the Holy Spirit is that baptism had equal standing with repentance in the plan of salvation. There is little doubt among the objective and candid observers that “eis" was and is used in the New Testament to convey the idea of “to obtain” remission of sins rather than those who wish Acts 2:38 would say “because our sins were remitted”.

There is a Greek word that can be and is often translated “because”. And that Greek word is “gar”. We find it in Galatians 3:26-27 where we are told, “For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For (gar) as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” (Gal 3:26-27). In this verse we have Paul, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, saying that we are all children of God by faith in Christ Jesus BECAUSE we have put on or been clothed with Christ in baptism. And if this was the Greek word “eis” instead of (gar) we would probably hear all sorts of excuses about why it should not be translated “because” in this verse.

When all men's arguments fall, the Bible's teaching on Baptism is still the same. Acts 2:38 still teaches Baptism is FOR the remission of sins, Acts 22:16 still teaches Baptism WASHES AWAY sins, Mark 16:16 still teaches "He who Believes AND is Baptized WILL BE SAVED". 1 Corinthians 12:13 still teaches that Baptism puts us INTO the body of Christ, Galatians 3:27 still teaches Baptism puts us INTO Christ, Romans 6:3-4 still teaches Baptism puts us into the DEATH of Christ, Colossians 2:12-13 still teaches that thru Baptism we obtain NEWNESS of life, 1 Peter 3:21 still teaches that Baptism SAVES us.

Some protest the need for baptism saying… ‘I believe baptism is commanded by God but not essential for salvation. It is merely an “outward sign of a work that has already taken place within.”’

According to Romans 6:3-10 and Colossians 2:12 we are dead and unified with Jesus through baptism into His death, His burial and His resurrection:

Biblical baptism- “He who believes and is baptized shall be saved.” –Mark 16:16

According to this erroneous teaching, which states: We are saved when we believe and are resurrected at that point and are then baptized as a sign of “what has already taken place,” we get another and completely different picture, which looks like this:

Denominational baptism – “He who believes and is saved shall be baptized.” – Denominational tradition

We don’t bury live people. On the contrary; We bury dead ones! This teaching, when looked at closely, is NOT what the Word of God teaches about baptism in Romans 6 and Colossians 2:12. This is not a Biblical baptism. Romans 6:9-10 states Christ died ONCE and cannot die again! We are unified with Him in death, buried with Him and also raised with Him through baptism. How does all this take place? By faith.

If we are “saved” before we are baptized, then baptism has no meaning and is contradictory to itself.

Furthermore, Ephesians 4:4-5 states that there is only ONE baptism, not two! A person must choose which baptism is the one that is taught in scripture. And there is only ONE baptism.

If we deny baptism is when we are reborn, we are denying not only our own resurrection (and rebirth) but also Christ’s resurrection.

To further clarify and reinforce this point see 1Corinthians 10:1-4, and remember the following illustration from the Old Testament as an illustration for us today:

God brought Israel:

1. out of Egypt (the land of slavery--i.e. sin)

2. through the sea (water -i.e. baptism)

3. and into the promised land (Israel—i.e. salvation, redemption)

God did NOT bring Israel:

1. out of Egypt (the land of slavery--i.e. sin)

3. into the promised land (Israel--i.e. salvation, redemption)

2. then through the sea (water -i.e. baptism)

Baptism is nothing new in God’s salvation plan. It is something He has always used to illustrate the separating of sin from mankind. God has always saved people through water. It was foreshadowed long ago in the Old Testament scriptures.

Consider Nadab and Abihu and their strange fire in Leviticus 10:1-3 and King Saul and his own way of doing things in 1 Samuel 13 & 15. Remember also, the story of Naaman the Leper. Was it the water of the Jordan that cured Naaman of his leprosy? No! It was God who removed his leprosy when Naaman demonstrated his faith by obeying God and doing just what God told him to do—in the exact manner God instructed him. Likewise, when we go down into the water in similar obedience, God forgives our sin. It is God who does the removing of sin, not the water. If God had told us that we have to pat our head and rub our belly to be forgiven, then that is what we would have to do to be forgiven. But God has not told us we have to pat our head and rub our belly. Instead, He has told us we have to be baptized for the forgiveness of our sins. 1 Corinthians 10:6,11; Romans 10:2-3; Romans 15:4

Consider also this passage: Mark 16:15-16 = And He said unto them, Go into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believes and is baptized shall be saved, and he that does not believe shall be condemned.

Notice Jesus said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.”

Notice also what Jesus did NOT say. He did NOT say, “He that believeth and is saved shall be baptized.”

In great error, most denominations teach the latter. In other words, most denominations teach what Jesus did NOT say! This should send a chill up the spine of anyone who is truly seeking to follow the teachings of Christ.

To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." John 8:31-32.

Notice: Abiding in Christ’s word = being His disciple. Therefore NOT abiding in Christ’s word = NOT being His disciple! This is a very simple test God gave us to determine who is and who is not a disciple of Christ.

Which baptism did you receive? – Acts 19:3

While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples and asked them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" They replied, "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit." So Paul asked, "Then what baptism did you receive?" "John's baptism," they answered. Paul said, "John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus." On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.

Faith in Jesus Christ is stressed yet again as a prerequisite to baptism. It cannot be looked back on in retrospect (as is practiced with infant baptism). These disciples had been baptized, but they did not have faith in Jesus at the time of their immersion. Therefore, they needed to be baptized correctly. They lacked a complete teaching on baptism (one element was missing--faith in Jesus), so Paul deemed it insufficient, taught them what they lacked, and baptized them properly.

Paul taught only ONE baptism. (Ephesians 4:4-5 ) This ONE baptism is into Christ for the forgiveness of sins after a person hears, believes, repents and confesses Jesus as the Son of God. John the Baptist’s baptism was one of repentance (for the forgiveness of sins nonetheless) These disciples only knew John’s baptism. They did not know yet the baptism of Jesus Christ that had replaced John’s starting when the Spirit was poured out at Pentecost in Acts 2. Since there is only ONE baptism and the baptism of John’s was no longer valid, Paul had them baptized right, with the ONE baptism.

“Baptism” that is not “for the forgiveness of sins” is not that one baptism and should be looked on in the same manner as a “baptism” that occurs before a person has faith in Christ - it needs to be done in the correct Biblical manner. If these disciples could not look back and apply their newfound faith in Christ retroactively to a different baptism (John’s), how then, can we look back on a different baptism (one that is NOT for the forgiveness of sins) and apply our newfound faith to it?

We know John the Baptist preached a baptism for the forgiveness of sins. (Mark 1:4, Luke 3:3)

We know Peter preached a baptism for the forgiveness of sins. (Acts 2:38)

We know that Jewish baptism (Tevillah) was for the forgiveness/removal of sins. (See John 3:3-5)

Before the protestant reformation movement, baptism was always for the forgiveness of sins.

Baptism that is not for the forgiveness of sins is a different baptism than the ONE baptism in Scripture. It is for a different purpose. It is NOT for the purpose that scriptural baptism is for—which is for the removal of our sins. And if it is NOT for that purpose, how then can our sins be forgiven? If we deny baptism is when our sins are forgiven and we pass from death to life, are we not denying the resurrection as well as the Word of God? And if we deny the resurrection, we deny Christ. So if a person did not understand baptism is when they become saved (i.e. their sins are forgiven) then they must have been receiving a different baptism. Anyone who has received the ONE baptism understands and believes this is when their sins are washed away. If we believe we receive forgiveness before baptism we have believed something contrary to the word of God. Furthermore, if we say we are saved prior to baptism we are not believing the Gospel message and are contradicting God. We are not acknowledging our state of being lost, or, our sins. That’s not a very good way to approach God if we are wanting Him to forgive our transgressions.

The idea that baptism is not for the removal/forgiveness of sins is a modern day idea that is contrary to the Word of God, the practices of the first disciples, and the teaching of Jesus. Jesus taught one cannot be saved unless one is baptized (see also Mark 16:15-16) If sin is what separates us from God, then our sins would have to be forgiven in order to be saved. If sins are forgiven at baptism, this would account for His teaching that we must be baptized in order to enter the kingdom of God. If sins are not forgiven at baptism, then His teaching is inconsistent with the rest of Scripture.

Certainly if Jesus, who was sinless, was concerned with “fulfilling all righteousness” in His baptism, we, as sinners, should be even more concerned about doing the same with ours.

Some (such as Baptists) may ask if what we believe about baptism at time of immersion matters. I.e., Is it important for us to believe that God is forgiving our sins in baptism when we are baptized? The answer is, yes, it is vital that we believe and understand what baptism is about, otherwise we are undergoing a different baptism, which is not the ONE baptism of Ephesians 4:4-5. The Colossians believed that God was working to make them a new creation in baptism. Notice the phrase “through faith in the working of God”: Colossians 2:12; Hebrews 11:6

Which baptism did you receive? Acts 19:3 BE HONEST (Your life depends on it)

Some different “baptisms” that are taught today:

The bible teaches: I teach: You teach:

In the beginning, God told Eve, “Do not eat of the fruit of the tree…” and Satan came along and said, “Did God really say ‘Do not eat of the fruit of the tree’?” He managed to persuade Eve that’s not really what God meant. Satan asks people the same question today, “Did God really say you need to be baptized to be saved?”

The answer is, “Yes, He did.”

In the garden of Eden, Satan changed God’s words, “..you must not touch it, or you will die.' " to "You will NOT surely die," Satan added one word, “NOT”. This seems to be the same word you have added…hmmmm……Satan negated God’s Word just like you do…..

James 1:22 - Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says.

9 questions for those that still want to insist salvation occurs before baptism:

ACTS 2:36-41

1.) When the crowd asked what they must do, did Peter say, “Repent and BELIEVE!” or did he say, “Repent and be BAPTIZED!”?

2.) When the crowd asked what they must do, did Peter say, “Ask Jesus to come into your heart! Pray and ask God to forgive you!” or did he say, “Repent and be BAPTIZED!”?

3.) When the crowd asked what they must do, did Peter lead them in the “sinner’s prayer” or did he tell them to “Repent and be BAPTIZED!”?

4.) If they were already saved before they were baptized, then why did Peter tell them to “Repent!”? (Verse 38)

5.) If they were already saved before they were baptized, why did Peter tell them, “SAVE yourselves…!”? (Verse 40)

6.) If “eis” means “because of”, where is there even one single credible version of the Bible where the translators translated this phrase “because of” and not “for”, or “so that”?

7.) Forgiveness only comes after repentance (Luke 13:3,5). So if “eis” means “because of”, why would Peter tell them to “Repent because your sins have already been forgiven!”?

8.) If baptism is not when our souls become saved, then why does it say, in verse 41, “Then they that gladly received his word were BAPTIZED: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand SOULS.”?

9.) If baptism is not for today, then why did Peter tell them, “For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call.”? (Verse 39)