Some Objections to Baptism Part 2

II. Acts 2:38... "For" Doesn't Mean "For"

Some denominational theologians (such as John MacArthur) who deny that baptism is part of the biblical plan of salvation say that the Acts 2:38 phrase "... be baptized every one of you in the Name of Jesus Christ FOR the remission of sins..." would be better translated "... BECAUSE OF the remission of sins..." There is a world of difference between the two. If it is "FOR" the remission of sins then it means that your sins are forgiven once you OBEY the command found here as well as Matthew 28:19, Mark 16:16 and several more times in the Book of Acts. If it is "BECAUSE OF" then your sins are already forgiven without OBEDIENCE to God's commands and baptism is merely an optional celebration of that fact. The question that you have to ask yourself is, "On what basis does MacArthur or any other person say that something would 'better translated'?" The answer should be, "Because the Greek language (from which translations are done) allows for it."

If the text of Acts 2:38 should be translated "because" why is the word used in that verse not a Greek word that means "because"? There were an abundance of words available to Luke if he had wanted to convey the notion of "on account of". Specifically, he could have used the word dioti (Strongs 1360) which means exactly that. Other words that were available to Luke to convey "because" were: hoti (3754); charin (5484), dia (1223), epei (1893) or kata (2596). Yet not one of these was chosen by Luke to convey the reason to be baptized.

Luke chose to use the word “eis" (1519), which the NASB Exhaustive Concordance defines as, "to or into (indicating a the point to be reached or entered into) Figuratively: a purpose or getting a result". Marshall's NASB Interlinear translates "eis" as "with an eye toward" in Acts 2:38. Luke chose a word that conveyed the idea of an act being undertaken to accomplish something… in this case an act of obedience that results in forgiveness of sins.

One must also ask, “If the phrase should be ‘better translated ‘because’ does any translation do so?” The Douay-Rheims, KJV, NKJV, RSV, NASB, NLT, NCV, Darby, and Webster all say “for”. The ASV says “unto”. The NRSV says “so that your sins may be forgiven”. Wesley’s New Testament says, “with a view toward”. Young’s Literal Translation says “to the remission of sins”. Today’s English Version says, “so that your sins will be forgiven”. Not a single one of them translate the verse as saying “because of the forgiveness of your sins”. If the verse is “better translated” in such a manner why doesn’t even one translation committee of even one version of the Bible do so?

The answer is that it is “better translated” that way because it better fits the theology of those who teach that baptism is not a part of the plan of salvation. Neither the existing translations nor the transcripts of the original languages which we have available to compare them to allow such a translation. Do we conform the Word of God to our theology or do we conform our theology to the Word of God? Those who support Sola Scriptura apparently believe the former, whereas Catholics believe the latter.

III. "Paul said that he didn't personally baptize very many, so it can't be important!"

1 Corinthians 1:13-17 (NASB)

Those try to use these verses to refute Baptism are guilty of not “accurately handling the Word of Truth” as Paul instructs Timothy to do. First, the place Paul in opposition to Peter in both what the Apostle preached on the Day of Pentecost but also what he wrote in his epistle on the subject in verses we’ve looked at previously. But they also put Paul in opposition to himself. In Romans 6 Paul says that Baptism is how we identify with Christ’s burial and resurrection. In 1 Corinthians 15 he identifies the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord as part of the gospel which he preaches.

If one is going to profess Sola Scriptura one must be consistent in allowing “the Bible to translate the Bible”. In jumping to the conclusion that Paul didn’t think that Baptism was important they go against the panoply of Scripture to the contrary and set Apostle against Apostle.

In the final part we’ll look at the “believe only” objection.