Christian Forums

It's my belief that many of what I would call 50/50 passages, that is, passages used by some to claim that water baptism in combination with faith are required for salvation, can linguistically, equally, be translated two or more different ways. Acts 2:38-39 for one. The word "eis" can mean "for," "unto," or "in regard to". The grammar allows for multiple angles. So, that means that while water baptism is connected to the moment, because people in that time usually were water baptized the moment that they came to faith, it also means that linguistically, it is not necessary to claim that those verses say that water baptism is part of the the cause of receiving the Spirit. It was part of the moment, but not part of the cause, and not necessarily listed in the correct order in which it was translated.

But we don't even need to get into the Greek for a definitive answer, because it will never supply one. The reason for that is we have multiple, equal options linguistically of translation. So, lets just look at the English and compare Scripture with Scripture. While I'll will give a few examples, this does not by any means represent the whole of Scripture that can be used to defend my stance. In fact, the Gospel message itself, everywhere in Scripture says, believe and be saved.

Acts 2:38-39 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. For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call."

If we cling to the order in Acts 2:38-39, note that here, in Acts 10, Peter uses the exact opposite order as he did in Acts 2:38-39. He also stresses that this is the same way he received the Holy Spirit (order implied) and was saved.

Acts 10:44-48 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then Peter answered, "Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days.

Nothing of water baptism is even mentioned in Acts 11:15-17.

Acts 11:15-17 And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, as upon us at the beginning. Then I remembered the word of the Lord, how He said, 'John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' If therefore God gave them the same gift as He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?"

Even in this unique transitional period, these true OT believers in Acts 19 who missed the whole thing. Jesus, came in the flesh, died on the cross, rose on the third day, and later ascended, and these OT believers missed it all. Their understanding ending with John the Baptist. Understanding that, we see the significance of the dialog between them and Paul here in Acts 19. Also notice that John s baptism is not contrasted with being baptized in the name of Jesus, it's contrasted with the baptism that saves. A baptism by faith. The baptism with the Holy Spirit. The answer is right there in the passage. Can you see it?

Acts 19:1-6 And it happened, while Apollos was at Corinth, that Paul, having passed through the upper regions, came to Ephesus. And finding some disciples he said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" So they said to him, "We have not so much as heard whether there is a Holy Spirit." And he said to them, "Into what then were you baptized?" So they said, "Into John's baptism." Then Paul said, "John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus." When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.

Here's more from the Book of Acts that say the same.

Acts 16:30-31 And he brought them out and said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" So they said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household."

Acts 13:39 and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses.

Acts 10:43 To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins."

Given the rest of the Bible, even the Gospel message itself, believe and be saved, it seems unnecessary to rewrite the entire Bible for a few passages that can equally be translated as water baptism not being part of the cause of salvation, but the result of it. Especially in a unique and unrepeatable time.

Even in the Gospels, these 'proof passages' that are used to prove the idea that water baptism saves are intentionally interpreted as half truths. Remember, water baptism and belief went hand in hand at that time. BUT, that does not mean that the power unto salvation comes from both, water baptism and believing. It's the Spirit baptism that saves, not water. Water baptism points, Spirit baptism saves. Why? Because it is the Spirit baptism that places us into Christ (1 Corinthians 12:13). That baptism is from the receiving of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Believe and be saved, that's the Gospel. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit (Spirit baptism) places us into Christ, the One True Church. Water baptism places us into water, as a symbolic testimony of the the spiritual placing into that came as a result of the Spirit indwelling. That which is born of Spirit is spirit, and that which is born of flesh is flesh. There is a clear reason why water baptism is absent from the one condemned in Mark 16:16. Water baptism is not the cause, and never was. This is just another instance where water baptism is connected with the moment, but not the cause of salvation.

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

See Ephesians 1:13, Romans 10:9-10, John 3:16, 5:24, 6:47.

1 Corinthians 1:14-17 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name. Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other. For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.

I don't know weather it was the old English of the KJV, reversing things, which is common in the KJV (Example - John 1:12-13), or the influence of the Catholic church back then, or just Ex Catholics who, when translating, didn't realize how deep the poison really went. Regardless, a big red flag should raise when we rewrite the whole Bible for a few, as I call them, 50/50 passages.

I just wanted to add, water baptism has evolved in meaning from the OT to the NT, probably due to the fact that it always pointed, and as that which it pointed to became more clear, the meaning changed, even from John the Baptist  to the disciples. John's water baptism pointed forward, the disciples water baptism pointed back. Interesting, that Johns water baptism, pointing forward, was for the repentance of sin (Mark 1:4, Acts 19:4), but that could not have been a reality before anyone was placed into Christ at Pentecost, and there was a death, resurrection, and ascension. That's why he said that He baptized into water for repentance of sin, but the One coming after Him would baptize/place into with/by the Holy Spirit.

In Matthew 28:19-20 Jesus commanded them to "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen."

"All the nations" being the point. This is a command for new believers to do, that's why they are also commanded to "observe all things that I have commanded you".

While the purpose of water baptism changed, it still pointed and it's still commanded. The only baptism that can save anyone is that of the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is received by faith. This is true everywhere in the Bible except the few instances in Acts, and a few passages that things were read into them that were never meant.

Being baptized with water places us into water
Being placed into water places us into water.

Being baptized with the Holy Spirit places us into Christ Jesus.
Being placed into with the Holy Spirit places us into Jesus Christ.

Quote from: Dave... on Sat Oct 03, 2026 - 13:09:27I just wanted to add, water baptism has evolved in meaning from the OT to the NT, probably due to the fact that it always pointed, and as that which it pointed to became more clear, the meaning changed, even from John the Baptist  to the disciples. John's water baptism pointed forward, the disciples water baptism pointed back. Interesting, that Johns water baptism, pointing forward, was for the repentance of sin (Mark 1:4, Acts 19:4), but that could not have been a reality before anyone was placed into Christ at Pentecost, and there was a death, resurrection, and ascension. That's why he said that He baptized into water for repentance of sin, but the One coming after Him would baptize/place into with/by the Holy Spirit.

John's baptism was not for the repentance of sin.  It was a baptism of repentance unto [eis] the forgiveness of sin. The baptism of Acts 2:38 results in the same forgiveness of sin plus it gives the indwelling Holy Spirit which is the baptism of the Holy Spirit

Water as a symbol points the unseen work .Symbol have no power other than look ahead as a shadow

Quote from: 4WD on Yesterday at 06:12:03John's baptism was not for the repentance of sin.  It was a baptism of repentance unto [eis] the forgiveness of sin. The baptism of Acts 2:38 results in the same forgiveness of sin plus it gives the indwelling Holy Spirit which is the baptism of the Holy Spirit

"Unto the forgiveness of sin" is an interesting nuance that I missed.    It still points forward, but it's a nuance that possibly distinguishes before the cross to after the cross. It distinguishes something.

Matthew uses that same nuance, but separates the two baptisms, the one in type, and the one true baptism.

Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

Which leads back to the OP, Is it by water baptism and faith, or by faith alone that ushers in the Holy Spirit baptism that ultimately gives forgiveness of sin? I believe because the order is reversed elsewhere, in the same book of Acts, more than once, that's the answer. All examples given in Acts from Pentecost forward are pointing back.

'Unto' means 'because of'. So would it be safe to say that John water baptized because of repentance? It would read like this....

Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water because of repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

John baptizes with water because of repentance.
Jesus baptizes with the Holy Spirit.

Then we can possibly add, or assume into repentance and change of mind first?

That would explain a lot of passages after the cross. As in believe [same as repent] and be water baptized for the remission of sins.
 
Acts 2:38-39 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. For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call."

It would be like saying change your mind and believe on the name of Jesus (preferably with a public testimony) for the remission of sins [baptism with the Holy Spirit].

Isn't that what Peter said in Acts 2:38-39?

Quote from: garee on Yesterday at 06:42:21Water as a symbol points the unseen work .Symbol have no power other than look ahead as a shadow

I agree.

God saved physical Israel (a type) with Passover (a type). He saved spiritual Israel with The Spirit baptism that places us into Jesus after the cross. 

"That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."

Types, which have no power, always point to the spiritual realities that hold the power.

Acts 1:8 But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth."

 

Quote from: Dave... on Yesterday at 13:15:33'Unto' means 'because of'. So would it be safe to say that John water baptized because of repentance? It would read like this....

Absolutely not.

Mar 1:4  John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for [Greek - eis} the forgiveness of sins.

From Strong's:

G1519

εἰς

eis

ice

A primary preposition; to or into (indicating the point reached or entered), of place, time, or (figuratively) purpose (result, etc.); also in adverbial 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 (literallyor figuratively.

But NEVER "because of".