Acts 2:38: Point Action Argument

[Bill]

The phrase “(eis) for the forgiveness of sins” occurs in other places in the Bible. For example, it is used in connection with Jesus’ death on the cross.

And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you; for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.(Matthew 26:27-28)

Now, I want to ask Shawn this simple question—will the point action argument in relationship to the forgiveness of sins work in this verse? In other words, was it the case that Jesus died on the cross, and then at that very point in time the sins of the all (for He died for all, right?) were forgiven?

Whatever it is, it admits of the possibility that something can be “for (eis) the remission of sins” but not involve point action (i.e., the action following immediately upon the deed upon which it is predicated—in this case, Jesus’ death, in Acts 2:38’s case, repentance and baptism). If it can be true here that point action is not involved, then it can also be true in Acts 2:38! If not, why not?

And He said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.(Luke 24:46-47)

This passage says that repentance is “for the forgiveness of sins.” If this is to be understood as most members of the Church of Christ understand Acts 2:38 then forgiveness comes at the point of repentance! This was my point, Shawn.

If the point action conclusion forced by the Church of Christ upon Acts 2:38 is demanded here then this passage says the point of forgiveness is repentance. If one can take this verse and argue that no, it is not at the point of repentance that forgiveness occurs because of what the Bible says elsewhere, then I can do the same with Acts 2:38! If not, why not?

[Bill]

EIS points to Jesus for remission.

The context supports EIS in the direction of the cross for remission, not water baptism.

And He said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.(Luke 24:46-47)

This passage says that repentance is “for the forgiveness of sins.” If this is to be understood as most members of the Church of Christ understand Acts 2:38 then forgiveness comes at the point of repentance! This was my point, Shawn.

[Heath]

Poor Bill has to run from one thread to another when He gets in a tight stop.

"You already presented "the correct translations" has anyone said you haven't?!" Army Bill

So if I have done that then your theory about Acts 2:38 is destroyed. Your theory said Acts 2:38 should be "Repent for the forgiveness of sins and be baptized...". Now you're admitting that theory is false by saying that I already presented CORRECT TRANSLATIONS.

None of the CORRECT TRANSLATIONS say "Repent for the forgiveness of sins and be baptized...". Therefore, you are wrong.

Now we're making some progress.

www.roysecitycoc.org

[Heath]

"…Repent…." "Repent" is derived from the Greek metanoesate. Metanoesate is second person, plural in number, aorist 1, and imperative mood (The Analytical Greek Lexicon, pg. 266). The second person in Acts 2: 38 indicates those to whom Peter is speaking, the plural suggests all are being addressed and told to repent, the aorist tense conveys the idea of immediacy of action or accomplishment, and the imperative mood means repentance is not an option but an actual commandment. Regarding the aorist tense and imperative mood in Acts 2: 38, A. T. Robertson states, "Change your mind and your life. Turn right about and do it now" (Word Pictures in the New Testament, A. T. Robertson, Vol. 3, pg. 34). W. E. Vine wrote thus regarding the nature of New Testament repentance:

Verb, metanoeo:

Literally, "to perceive afterwards" (meta, "after," implying "change," noeo, "to perceive;" nous, "the mind, the seat of moral reflection"), in contrast to pronoeo, "to perceive beforehand," hence signifies "to change one's mind or purpose," always, in the NT, involving a change for the better, an amendment, and always, except in Luke 17:3,4, of "repentance" from sin. The word is found in the Synoptic Gospels (in Luke, nine times), in Acts five times, in the Apocalypse twelve times, eight in the messages to the churches, Rev. 2:5 (twice),16,21 (twice), RV, "she willeth not to repent" (2nd part); Rev. 3:3,19 (the only churches in those chapters which contain no exhortation in this respect are those at Smyrna and Philadelphia); elsewhere only in 2 Cor. 12:21.

Repentance when used in the climate of salvation is a change of mind or will that is precipitated by godly sorrow and results in reformation of life (2 Cor. 7: 10; Matt. 21: 29; 2 Cor. 7: 10, 11). Repentance is required of all men, even Christians when they sin (Acts 17: 30, 31, Rev. 2: 5). Simply stated, it is either repent or perish (Lk. 13: 5).

more to come

[Heath]

"…and…." "And" (kai) is a copulative or joining word in Greek syntax, simply stated. Kai is the most common of all Greek conjunctions. Ray Summers wrote thus regarding Greek conjunctions: "The two main types which appear in the New Testament are coordinating and subordinating conjunctions, coordinating conjunctions usually connect two equal grammatical elements….Examples of coordinating conjunctions used frequently are kai…." (Essentials of New Testament Greek, pg. 60). The simple joining force of "and" (kai) in Acts 2: 38 is seen in the reason they were to repent and be baptized, "remission of sins" and "the gift of the Holy Spirit." Both attainments involved in repentance and baptism are equally important. The question now is, what is the next item of equal importance in Acts 2: 38 that is involved in satisfying their question about what to do in order to be saved?

"…baptized…." "Baptized" (baptistheto) is third person, singular, aorist 1 in tense, imperative mood, and passive voice (Analytical Greek Lexicon, pg. 65). Some have contended that since there is a grammatical change in Acts 2: 38 from second person, plural in the case of "repent" to third person, singular in the case of "baptized," Peter meant to convey to the reader that baptism unlike repentance is not to be viewed as essential to salvation.

The question is, what significant difference is there in the change in the grammar pertaining to the matter of the acquisition of salvation? The singular in number in the case of "baptized" would simply be the distributive singular, meaning "let each one of you be baptized." If anything, the distributive singular would emphasize individual responsibility. Therefore, the wording in Acts 2: 38, "each of you" (hekastos humon). However, the individual responsibility would equally apply to "repent," in view of the coordinating conjunction, "and" or kai. The passive voice does not diminish the importance of baptism because baptism is something done to one (the subject is acted upon). Hence, the literal translation is, "let be baptized" (Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, by Nestle, Cp. Acts 8: 38). I had part in a religious debate on Acts 2: 38 years ago in which the disputant who held that Acts 2: 38 does not include baptism as essential to salvation said, "Peter sought to de-emphasize any equally shared importance of baptism to repentance by not even addressing the audience in the case of baptism (third person)!" It must be remembered, though, that regardless of why the grammar shifts from the second person to the third person, Peter shows he continues to address the audience in regards to baptism by saying, "each of you" or "every one of you" (hekastos humon). What actually could be the significance of the third person, those about whom the writer is speaking instead of those being addressed? Some have suggested that Peter is saying, "Repent and let each allow himself to be baptized (those who have repented) every one of you…." I do not know of an English translation that so renders the grammar because it would be very awkward to the average reader. It is possible that there was an idiom involved in this grammar concerning which we are simply not aware.(It does appear that the distributive singular "be baptized" joined with "every one of you," hekastos humon does idiomatically form great emphasis as to individual duty). Regardless of the reason for the change in Acts 2: 38 from the second to the third person in the instance of "baptized," the change does not affect the importance of baptism coupled with repentance.

more to come

[Heath]

"…in the name of Jesus Christ…." "Repent" and "be baptized" are to be performed "in the name of Jesus Christ" (epi to onomati Iesou). Commentator Meyer comments thus on the preposition "epi" (translated "in" with the literal meaning of "on"): "On the ground of the name, so that the name 'Jesus Messiah,' as the contents of your faith and confession, is that on which the becoming baptized rests" (Meyer's Commentary on the New Testament, Vol. 4, pg. 66). The baptism of the Unlimited Commission looks to Jesus' power and authority, as it was he who appointed it. It is manifest that Peter is not intending to set forth, "in the name of Jesus Christ" as a formula. I say this because there is no set word combination to be said at the time of baptism (cp. Matt. 28: 19). To be baptized "in the name of Jesus Christ" or of the Godhead, is to form a relationship with God (cf. I Cor. 1: 11-13).

Is Peter teaching "baptismal regeneration" in Acts 2: 38 in the sense that the unchanged sinner can be immersed and because of some efficacy residing in the water, come up changed? The answer is, no. Repentance must precede baptism; hence, drastic change has already occurred. Furthermore, the audience has also been told to believe (vs. 36, it is also inferred that they were required prior to baptism to confess Jesus' deity, Rom. 10: 9, 10).

more to come

[Heath]

"…for the remission of sins…." 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).

Wallace's work Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics contains the typical rejection of "for" meaning toward forgiveness (pg. 369-371). He contends that if we understand "for" (eis) in order to, then we must conclude that salvation is by works, since baptism is a work. Wallace, therefore, rejects the Greek grammar. However, the condemned concept of salvation by works involves works whereby man can boast (Eph. 2: 8-9). Faith or belief itself is said to be a work, a work that God has required (Jn. 6: 29). Baptism is also a work required by God and offers no occasion for boasting. The respected A. T. Robertson reasons that eis in Acts 2: 38 cannot mean with a view to. He sites three cases involving eis in which he believes eis is used in the sense of "because of." However, each of these cases can also support the usual "with a view to" (anticipatory) use of eis. Lutheran scholar and linguist R. C. H. Lenski summed up the matter of eis in Acts 2: 38 as follows:

more to come

[Heath]

"It amounts to nothing more than a formal grammatical difference whether eis is again regarded as denoting sphere (equal to en, as Robertson argues, dm) or, as commonly supposed, as indicating aim and purpose, R. 592, or better still as denoting effect. Sphere would mean that baptism is inside the same circle as remission; he who steps into this circle has both. Aim and purpose would mean that baptism intends to give remission; in him, then, who receives baptism aright this intention, aim, and purpose would be attained. The same is true regarding the idea of effect in eis. This preposition connects remission so closely with baptism that nobody has as yet been able to separate the two…." (Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles, pg. 107, 108).

Some object to the obvious use of eis regarding the purpose of repentance and baptism in Acts 2: 38 by saying, "if one understands eis as meaning 'with a view to' instead of 'because of,' then one must accept 'holy water salvation.'" Such is not the case. While the scriptures plainly associate salvation with baptism, the salvation or remission is contingent on Jesus' blood, not the literal water (I Pet. 3: 21; Matt. 26: 28). Thus, in the act of baptism having been preceded by belief, repentance, and confession of Jesus' deity, one spiritually contacts Jesus' blood; hence, obtaining the forgiveness of sins (Matt. 26: 28, Acts 2: 38).

Let us recall the context and the aim of Peter: These people are convicted of their sins and they have asked Peter what to do to be saved and Peter is answering them in Acts 2: 38. "Remission" is the Greek aphesin that means "to send away." The penitent Saul was told to, "…arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord" (Acts 22: 16, notice how there is no "for" in this verse to quibble over and yet men reject the simple meaning).

more to come

[Heath]

"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Acts 2:38

www.roysecitycoc.org

[Bill]

Sorry, but you may need to look again. I posted there first. This post is in response to your comments and you AGAIN are ignoring every point. You are use to Baptist debates, but not those from within.

You are right, I am making progress. But sadly, you are shooting for stars and hitting the ground.

Folks take notice that Bill isnt replying nor answering the post. He is using debate tactics to sway people. This is what we do when we cant make a point. We resort to stuff like "poor bill" "billy boy" and then end it by saying "Now we are making progress" as if he has made any.

If you wish to make "real progress" address the points and questions. If you wish to ignore this, it the same as not having an answer.

[Bill]

Shawn Heath, we already agreed upon this, and you still are missing the point. I made many points above and question from her and other post that you just will not address. Take care friend.

[Bill]

By agreed upon I mean the way the verse is stated. Shawn just wont admit that EIS points back to Jesus and not water, and this is exactly what the Catholics do.

[Bill]

I think we have already covered everything you just pasted. You still are not seeing my point. Remove your church of Christ shades for a bit and you might see this. You're pasting things that aren't addressing the points. It looks good and a lot to read, but you still are missing the point. Answer the question and points from Shawn's mind, and not from your copy/paste.

Folks he is using another debate tactic, called "overload" -- its when you cant answer directly so you post tons of info close to the subject so people will say " wow, he sure put a lot up on that" when in fact he hasn't addressed the points and questions.

Shawn know EIE looks back and he isn't familiar with "point action argument" because we were taught this. So he posted a library of thing around the subject so it appears he answered. Its an old debate trick.

[Heath]

Bill wrote:

By agreed upon I mean the way the verse is stated. Shawn just wont admit that EIS points back to Jesus and not water, and this is exactly what the Catholics do.

Tis a false dichotomy that you've created my friend.

Reader beware of the STRAW-MEN arguments such as-

-baptismal regeneration

-trusting water

-works based salvation

These cards will always be played in a tighty spot.

www.roysecitycoc.org

[Bill]

Shawn, are you not understanding that I have all of these arguments you are pasting. You are failing to see that EIS looks back to Jesus.

...again EIS points backwards to Jesus work. There are many points made, that you have not addressed. You are real close to presenting arguments from Catholics.

Does EIS look back to the cross? Yes or No?

Did you repent "because" of the Gospel? Yes or No

[Heath]

"Does EIS look back to the cross? Yes or No?"

YES

"Did you repent "because" of the Gospel? Yes or No"

Because the Gospel was preached to me? YES

See how easy it is to answer TRUE or FALSE and YES or NO?

"You are failing to see that EIS looks back to Jesus."

What color is the sky in your world?

www.roysecitycoc.org

[Bill]

If you really insist on playing the "purpose" card, we will. You know nobody within your sect was baptized purposely for the gift of the Holy Spirit.

A link was posted on here citing two Church of Christ preachers debating over whether one receives the Holy Spirit, which clearly demonstrates that you guys do not "speak the same things" over doctrinal issues.

You then come back stating that they remained in fellowship over this doctrinal issue which much is built from Acts 2:38 - the Gift of the Holy Spirit.

Folks, we see the rules bent here. They exclude other believers in Christ over baptism but then accept each other over the doctrine of the Holy Spirit from the same verse Acts 2:38.

Notice, Shawn didnt have more to say about this...

[Heath]

Bill wrote:

If you really insist on playing the "purpose" card, we will. You know nobody within your sect was baptized purposely for the gift of the Holy Spirit.
A link was posted on here citing two Church of Christ preachers debating over whether one receives the Holy Spirit, which clearly demonstrates that you guys do not "speak the same things" over doctrinal issues.
You then come back stating that they remained in fellowship over this doctrinal issue which much is built from Acts 2:38 - the Gift of the Holy Spirit.
Folks, we see the rules bent here. They exclude other believers in Christ over baptism but then accept each other over the doctrine of the Holy Spirit from the same verse Acts 2:38.
Notice, Shawn didnt have more to say about this...

"You know nobody within your sect was baptized purposely for the gift of the Holy Spirit."

And you know this how???

www.roysecitycoc.org

[Heath]

"You already presented "the correct translations" has anyone said you haven't?!" Army Bill

Therefore, Acts 2:38 as we have it in our Bibles is correct.

Bill has nothing. So he reasons in circles. He creates problems that do not exist.

www.roysecitycoc.org

[Bill]

I think by now you know who I know.