Refutation of the Campbellite interpretation of Acts 2:38, which makes water baptism essential to eternal salvation.
John Gill, Exposition of the Bible.
JOHN GILL: Then Peter said unto them,.... Being the mouth of the apostles, and being ready to give advice, and speak a word of comfort to their distressed minds: repent: change your minds, entertain other thoughts, and a different opinion of Jesus of Nazareth, than you have done; consider him, and believe in him, as the true Messiah and Savior of the world; look upon him, not any more as an impostor, and a blasphemer, but as sent of God, and the only Redeemer of Israel; change your voice and way of speaking of him, and your conduct towards his disciples and followers; a change of mind will produce a change of actions in life and conversation: bring forth fruits meet for repentance; and make an open and hearty profession of repentance for this your sin. And this the apostle said, to distinguish between a legal and an evangelical repentance; the former is expressed in their being pricked to the heart, on which they were not to depend; the latter he was desirous they might have, and show forth; which springs from the love of God, is attended with views, or at least hopes of pardoning grace and mercy, and with faith in Christ Jesus: it lies in a true sight and sense of sin, under the illuminations and convictions of the Spirit of God; in a sorrow for it, after a godly sort, and because it is committed against a God of love, grace, and mercy, and it shows itself in loathing sin, and in shame for it, in an ingenuous acknowledgement of it, and in forsaking it: and this is moreover urged, to show the necessity of it, as to salvation, for such that God would not have perish, he will have come to repentance; so to their admission to the ordinance of baptism, to which repentance is a prerequisite; and to which the apostle next advises: and be baptized everyone of you; that repents and believes; that is, in water, in which John administered the ordinance of baptism; in which Christ himself was baptized, and in which the apostles of Christ administered it; in this Philip baptized the eunuch; and in this were the persons baptized that were converted in Cornelius's house; and it is distinguished from the baptism of the Spirit, or with fire, the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit mentioned in the last clause of this verse; and which ordinance of water baptism was administered by immersion, as the places, Jordan and Aenon, where John performed it, and the instances of it particularly in Christ, and in the eunuch, and the end of it, which is to represent the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, as well as the primary signification of the word, show. And this is to be done, in the name of Jesus Christ; not to the exclusion of the Father, and of the Spirit, in whose name also this ordinance is to be administered, Matthew 28:19 but the name of Jesus Christ is particularly mentioned, because of these Jews, who had before rejected and denied him as the Messiah; but now, upon their repentance and faith, they are to be baptized in his name, by his authority, according to his command; professing their faith in him, devoting themselves to him, and calling on his name. The end for which this was to be submitted to, is, for the remission of sins; not that forgiveness of sin could be procured either by repentance, or by baptism; for this is only obtained by the blood of Christ; but the apostle advises these awakened, sensible, repenting, and believing souls, to submit to baptism, that by it their faith might be led to Christ, who suffered and died for their sins, who left them buried in his grave, and who rose again for their justification from them; all which is, in a most lively manner, represented in the ordinance of baptism by immersion: the encouragement to it follows, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost: not the grace of the Spirit, as a regenerator and sanctifier; for that they had already; and is necessary, as previous to baptism; unless it should mean confirmation of that grace, and stability in it, as it appears from Acts 2:42 they afterwards had; but rather the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, particularly the gift of speaking with tongues, which Christ had received from the Father, and had now shed on his apostles; see Acts 19:5. --- Gill, John. "Commentary on Acts 2:38". "The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible". https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/geb/acts-2.html. 1999.
Discussion of Acts 2:38, in public debates:
Benjamin Franklin vs. John A. Thompson, at Reynoldsburg, Ohio, 1873, pages 185-
ELDER JOHN A. THOMPSON: Mr. Franklin Puts great stress upon the words, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." Is the salvation from sins? He says it is undoubtedly. What are his reasons? Because Luke puts the remission of sins in the place of the word saved. Let us see. Mark 16:15: "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature." What were they to preach? Answer: The gospel. What does Luke say? "That repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name, among all nations." The repentance and remission preached in the name of Christ refer to the gospel as given by Mark. The Apostle Peter preached the same gospel on the day of Pentecost. But the trouble with Mr. Franklin is, that he can see nothing in Peter's preaching, nor in the relation of those to whom Peter addressed the truth, who were in spirit the heirs of God, and inquiring their duty to the visible ordinances of Christ; but he leaps over all this to reach the acme of his whole theory, by applying the terms be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, to his proposition that baptism is in order to the remission of past sins. I will make this contrast between the Apostle Peter's command and Mr. Franklin's preaching: Peter makes it an ordinance performed in the name of Christ, in obedience to him, as both Lord and Christ, and because of the relationship as heir in the covenant of God which they sustain to Christ as their Savior, and through whose blood their sins are pardoned. See the next verse: "For the promise is unto you," etc., showing that the same gospel which Abraham believed, they believed, and were therefore heirs according to the promise. But to what do the terms, "shall be saved," as given in the commission, refer? Jesus, we are told, connects faith and baptism together. But we have seen that faith and baptism are not only distinct, but have entirely a different use in the commission. Faith is a spiritual grace, by which we are manifested as the sons of God in spirit, while baptism is an external ordinance, by which we enter the visible Church. You will notice that our Lord says, he that believeth not shall be damned. Who is in a condemned state? The unbeliever. Who is in a justified state? The believer. But if the remission of sins depends on baptism, then it is the unbaptized, whether believer or unbeliever, that are damned. But the antithesis is certainly between the believer and the unbeliever; and salvation, therefore, refers to the faith, and not to baptism. If we say baptism is essential to salvation in the sense of the text, we say Abraham was not saved, and deny the gospel that God preached to him.
Pages 186-187. "I shall discourse first upon John 3:3,5,6. First. Jesus is here discoursing upon a subject that Nicodemus did not understand. But he would have readily understood Christ had he said to him, you must be baptized and obey the scripture. Did Christ select obscure words to mystify his mind? I answer, no. Christ was talking of a spiritual, and not a temporal birth. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Flesh produces the one by generation. Spirit produces the other by regeneration. In one there is a temporal separation, cleansing and quickening; in the other there is a spiritual separation, cleansing and quickening. In one, all is temporal and visible; in the other all is spiritual and invisible. .... But I will have to let this suffice for the present, to hear what great men and churches have said. What have they said. Well, I suppose they know just how it (baptism) is, and how to perform it. No, Mr. Franklin will reply: Their practice is most pernicious, they sprinkle it on them. Then why do you bring them forward as witnesses? To show many people believe it. I call that a very poor reason. If you could prove it by the word of God, it would save you a great deal of hunting among old musty volumes to find what uninspired man has said. But as you can not do that, it might save time if you would quote from the Christian System by A. C. (Alexander Campbell). But then (in John 3:3,5,6) the water and Spirit are joined together, and one goes not without the other. What then, if baptism be the water, no unbaptized person was ever born again, and never entered the kingdom of God. There is his doctrine, look at it, and know for yourselves that it is what we claim for it.
John M. Thompson vs. J. H. Lawson, written (not oral) debate, 1898.
ELDER JOHN M. THOMPSON: p. 47: "You are mistaken when you say the Greek preposition "eis" always looks forward, but never looks backward. I offer the following in proof that you are wrong: "He that receiveth a prophet in (eis) the name of of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward." Matthew 10:41. The Emphatic Diaglott reads: He who entertains a prophet because (eis) he is a prophet will obtain a prophet's reward." Here the preposition "eis" (from which "for" is derived, Acts 2:38) looks backward, and signifies because of. Do you accept Wilson as authority?
J. H. LAWSON: Elder Thompson says I am wrong in saying the Greek preposition eis always looks forward but never backward. You can't find an authority but that says the Greek preposition eis is prospective. Ek is opposed to eis and looks back, meaning motion from, but eis looks forward and means to, toward, into, unto etc.
ELDER JOHN M. THOMPSON: page 56: "The BIble is the best authority in proof that Elder Lawson is wrong relative to the preposition eis. "He who entertains a prophet because (eis) he is a prophet, etc. Matthew 10:41. Eis looks to the fact that he is already a prophet when he is entertained. "Entertains is in the present tense, and all that is spoken of as future is the reward.
J. H. LAWSON: Why should he claim that eis in Matt. 10:41 looks back instead of forward when all authorities say it looks forward or is prospective? The feeding or entertaining the prophet was prospective and the preposition eis looks forward to that time.
ELDER JOHN M. THOMPSON: I claim that eis, in Matt. 10:41, looks backward, as Wilson correctly renders eis "because" and it signifies that the prophet was entertained because he was a prophet, before he was entertained. Entertains is in the present tense, and eis must look backward here. Suppose we change it, to suit J. H. Lawson's construction. He that receiveth a prophet in order to the name of a prophet. Do you see the fallacy of your rendering? Sir, I tell you the Gibraltar of Campbellism is gone.
EIS: I am perfectly satisfied as to the meaning of "eis," I have the best authority on "eis" to be found on earth or in heaven - Christ. Matt. 10:41. No more is necessary. The prophet was received because (eis) he was a prophet. "Because" looks back to the fact that he was a prophet before he was received.
B. F. Querry vs. W. H. Williams, at Lena, Indiana, 1892, pages 185-188.
ELDER B. F. QUERRY: "I have several things to submit. One is this: While Peter was preaching it is said they were pricked in the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Men and brethren, what must we do?" Now I ask the question, dear friends, he called your special attention to a sentence in the thirty-seventh verse, second chapter of Acts, "When they heard this, they were pricked in their hearts, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles." What can that signify but that they believed what Peter preached? That his words tendered their hearts? If they believed all Peter preached upon that occasion it is positive evidence, then, that they believed before Peter commanded them to repent, or to be baptized either. Now, just take that one along. It is conceded, now, by our brother, that is,my opposite brother, you know, that they believed Peter commanded them to either repent or be baptized, and now we ask the question, since they conceded that, what is the believer's standing before God? Is it good or bad? Are there any promises of good to the believer? Let us see. John 5:24: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that heareth my word, and believeth on Him that sent me, hath everlasting life." Any promise to that man? But he is passed from death unto life. Then the man is not condemned, and the promise is that he shall not come into condemnation, but is passed from death unto life. He is in possession of remission of his sins, therefore I affirm, without fear of successful contradiction, that our brother's interpretation of Peter's language makes the word "for" mean "in order to." It is simply impossible to be true and I will demonstrate it. If I can not do it I will join him and they can baptize me. I will hang the whole right on Acts 2:38. Now, I call attention, dear friends, to the little word "for." I will call attention to Luke 5:14, to the word "for." And as soon as he had spoken, "immediately the leprosy departed from him, but he was cleansed." Is he clean that moment? Is that man the only man with leprosy, and that moment it departed? He is now a clean man, is he not? And straitly charged him, "Say nothing to any other man, but go and show thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing, according as Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them." I want to know, dear friends, what does the word "for" mean? Does it mean in order to his cleansing? Was he not already a clean man before Christ sent him to the priest? I defy my brother, or any other man, to show that the word "for" here means "in order to" his cleansing, or if it is, it must be only in a metaphorical way and not actual. This being the case we have this corroborated in Luke 5:14. I will read the conclusion: "And it came to pass, when he was in a certain city, behold a man full of leprosy; who seeing Jesus, fell on his face, and besought him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. And He put forth His hand and touched him, saying, I will; be thou clean. And immediately the leprosy departed from him. And He charged him to tell no man; but go, and shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing, according as Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them." There is one thing I want to notice; the little word "for" occurs in both clauses and it certainly means two things. We admit it means "because of," and further admit it means "in order to"; last time, "in order to"; first, "because of." Now, we have shown you that these people were believers before Peter commanded them, and we have demonstrated the fact that the believer's standing is good before God and that he has the promise, and not only the promise, but he is already in possession of life. He is already born of God, and besides that his sins are remitted; that is, if the word "justification" means to have your sins remitted. I want to say, dear friends, if that is the case we must not interpret Peter to mean that they must be baptized in order to the remission of sins. I call my brother's special attention to Acts 10. The Holy Ghost poured out on him, yet ungodly sinners if his doctrine is correct, it was poured out on them while yet dead sinners. Acts 2:38 makes the Holy Ghost to be poured out upon ungodly sinners? Take that along brother. Oh, we'll "git" you. About another thing. The scriptures respond in Act 2, that the people were present on the day of Pentecost: first, that they were devout men. A devout man, to say the least about him, is a good man. A pious man, a devout man. So much. Now dwelling at Jerusalem. Those people come together once every year, some of them, probably many thousands of them. They come to worship God and act according to the commandments, and when the Holy Ghost was poured out on the apostles and they began to speak and magnify the Lord. Two classes present, one said, "How is it we hear these men speak in our own tongues?" Did they not understand, dear friends, these things upon that occasion to be the wonderful works of God? I ask, how many classes of people are there in the world? According to Paul, but two. One the "natural man" and the other is the "spiritual man," and those that understand the things of the Spirit of God, they are "spiritual men." Those that do not understand, it is simply foolishness to them, and they charge upon the church of God that they were full of new wine."
Grigg M. Thompson vs. O. A. Burgess, 1868, p.
ELDER GRIGG M. THOMPSON: "I come now to another point - the language of Peter on the day of Pentecost; for there is my friend's grand rallying point. Peter says to the multitude, who were inquiring, "What shall we do? "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 Ghost." "In the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins." Now, the meaning of "for" here is, "that you may have," or, "in order to the forgiveness of sins," the brother tells you. Let us look into the case a little. You know he talked a good deal about how a man might "garble" scriptures, wrest fragments of Scripture from their proper connection, and in that way might collate scriptures to prove almost anything. Now, in this case, let us not "garble" the language of the evangelist; but let us give Peter fair play, and take what he says in its legitimate connection, and see what he means. Let us read a little. "But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice and said unto them, Ye men of Judea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words: For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day. But this is that which was spoken of by the prophet Joel; And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh; and yours sons and your daughters shall prophesy; and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams; and on my servants, and on my handmaidens, I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord, the same shall be saved. Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you, by wonders and miracles and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death; because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face; for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved; therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover, also, my flesh shall rest in hope; because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance. Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; he, seeing this before, spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we are all witnesses. Therefore, being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. For David is not ascended into the heavens; but he saith, himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, until I make thy foes thy footstool. Therefore, let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. Now, when they had heard this, they were pricked in their hearts, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?"
In answer to this question, Peter made use of the language quoted by the brother, and upon which he so much relies, "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 Ghost."
Notice, if you please, the kind of people that were gathered there. It is said they were "devout men out of every nation under heaven," proselytes to the Jewish religion, as well as the native-born Jews, who had come up to Jerusalem to keep the feast. What is a "devout man" but a pious man? When the Holy Ghost descended from heaven, and the apostles began to talk with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance, the rabble said, "These men are drunk with new wine." It was the rabble that said that. There is not a word about the "devout" men saying anything of that kind. They were willing and anxious to know the will of God concerning them; and Peter accordingly addressed them, and pointed to Christ as the promised Messiah and the Savior of the world, whom the Jews had taken and crucified, but whom God had raised up and exalted to the right hand of the Majesty on high. These "devout men," who had hitherto been of the Jewish religion, had been looking for the coming of the promised Messiah, and now, when they heard what Peter said, they were cut to the heart - or "pricked to the heart," and cried out, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?"
Now, as the brother has stated, it was then and there that the church of our Lord Jesus Christ took its outward, visible organization; hence, it is clear that the point of inquiry of these "devout" or pious men was, since Christ has come indeed, what shall we do in order to gain admission into his church? Now, then, says Peter, "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 Ghost." It was in the name of Jesus Christ that the remission of sins lay, and not in baptism. They were to receive the remission of sins first; and then, because of that remission, they were to be baptized. There is the whole thing in a nutshell.
Now permit me here to remark, that a word that will receive and admit of two or more different interpretations in the position and connection in which it stands, can never be taken as decided proof of anything. I refer my brother, now, to the first chapter of Mark, where Christ healed the leper, and after he had cleansed him from his leprosy, he told him to go and show himself to the priest, and offer an offering for his cleansing, as Moses commanded. Now, let me ask, was that offering in order to procure his cleansing, after he had been already cleansed by Christ? Certainly not. Just so in the case before us. After having received the remission of your sins through the Lord Jesus Christ, now be baptized, as a token of your obedience to the will and commands of Him who, in great mercy, has forgiven your sins. If my brother can show you that the word "for" in all cases, and under all circumstances, means "in order to," then there will be some force in his argument, that those men were commanded to be baptized as a condition of salvation; but if, on the other hand, the word "for" ever means "because of," or "on account of," then there is no force whatever in his argument - it can not be relied on as conclusive to establish his proposition. For, as I said in the outset, no word that admits of more than one meaning can be depended on as conclusive evidence to establish anything. The Savior evidently does use the word "for" in that sense in the first chapter of Mark, where he told the man that had been healed of leprosy to go and make the requisite offering for his cleansing, according to the law of Moses.
Page 235. "He tells us it was the office of the blood of Christ to wash away sins. I agree with him in that. Now, I will quote you a text in John: "The blood of Jesus Christ, his Son, cleanseth us from all sin." Does a-l-l mean all, or does it mean only part? If the blood of Christ cleanses us from all sin, what is left for baptism to cleanse us from? . . . The fight, you see, if between the brother and St. John. I have nothing to do with it.
George Griffin vs. Guy N. Woods, 1957, page 104, 106-107.
ELDER GEORGE GRIFFIN: "I asked him about "for." He answered my question "in order to". I want to refer you, Mr. Woods, to every place in the New Testament where the word "for" follows baptism. Every place that the word "for" us used following baptism - it is never "in order to." Not one place in the New Testament. I am going to read them all. Matthew 3:11, "Unto repentance (not in order to). Matthew 18:29, "Baptized in the name of" (not in order to the name). Acts 2:38, "For the remission" (not in order to remission). Acts 19:3, "Unto John's baptism" (not in order to John's baptism). I. Cor. 1:15, "In mine own name" (not to get the name). I. Cor. 1:13, "In the name of Paul" (not in order to the name of Paul) - baptized in the name of Paul, not to procure the name of Paul, not in order to the name of Paul. We are not through yet. Romans 6:4, "Baptized into death," (not in order to death). I. Cor. 12:13, "By one Spirit you are all baptized into one body." Not in order to one body.
C. H. Cayce vs. F. P. Srygley, 1911, p. 188-190.
ELDER C. H. CAYCE: "Then he goes to the Acts of the Apostles to find the carrying out of this - the second chapter of the Acts, for the carrying out of the commission. He quoted first to fourth verses. "And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." The fifth verse says: "And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven." There were some worshiping characters there; there were some praying characters there, characters who were devout; and then there was another class (others mocking - mockers) present, also, as well as devout or religious characters. These characters, who were the devout or religious characters, when they heard what the apostle said, in the winding up, in the thirty-sixth verse: "Therefore, let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ" - "Now when they heard this, they were pricked [or cut] in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? 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 Ghost. For the promise is unto you." Brother Srygley, was the promise unto them BEFORE they were baptized? Please do not forget to answer that. The apostle, before they were baptized, after saying, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins," immediately continued, saying, "for the promise IS unto you" - the promise is to them already - "and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call." Then the fortieth verse says: "And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves." Do what? Save yourselves. Is this eternal salvation? Brother Srygley has admitted that God saves, that it is the blood of Jesus that cleanses; but here the apostle tells these characters to "save yourselves." Save yourselves from what? From eternal damnation? Save yourselves from everlasting destruction from the presence of God? No, sir. Save yourselves from this crooked generation. Save yourselves from this perverse nation by which you are surrounded. How are you going to do that? By doing what he said do. Save yourselves, not from an eternal burning, not from eternal perdition, but save yourselves from that crooked nation, that perverse generation, by coming out from among them and being a separate people from them. Save yourselves thus. NOTE: The name "Aunt Fannie Corbett" played a significant role in this debate. The Campbellites all ought to think hard about why.
J. D. Holder vs. Gus Nichols, 1950 (Discussion of Acts 2:38 from Thayer's Lexicon and George Ricker Berry's)
ELDER J. D. HOLDER: "Here is the way it reads: "Repent, and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus, the anointed One for the remission of sins." Jesus was anointed, he shed his blood, and remitted sins. Now, you do this "in the name of" the One who remitted sins. "With a view to the one, with a view to the blood;" and if my friend does not believe it, he does not believe Christ, as Savior." -
Page 211: "Acts 2:38, "Repent and be baptized every one of you, "unto or "for the remission of sins." As he has it here on the chart, "unto." All right: here is what I gave him: and it has not been answered. I debated with one of the very best men they have. And I have given him that name - I shall gladly give him that name this evening, Brother G. C. Brewer (I call him "brother" because he addressed me as "brother," and I believe he has grace in his heart. Maybe that is more than Nichols would say about Holder!) there was not an unkind word, not a personality, used during the four days of that debate. That gentleman agreed with me on the terms: I laid them down before I made my arguments on Acts 2:38 - and I would not have been afraid of the man if as big as the side of a house - when he agreed with me on the terms of Acts 2:38. I said, Brother Brewer, the word "Christ" is not a translated word." This is not new matter, I presented it to Brother Brewer and to you also.) The word Christ is not a translated word. If you were to translate it as the Greek lexicons do and give it to us, it means "anointed," or "the anointed One." And it would read this way in the English translation of the word: "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus the anointed One for the remission of sins." Now, here is the difference between Nichols and me: every time he picked up that book, he did not read those lexicons correctly! And, Brother Nichols, it will go down on the printed page for the careful reader to inspect. Those lexicons tell us that the word there IS NOT A PROPER NAME! George Ricker Berry says it is a verbal adjective. All right: here is the way it works: (you Gentlemen can wear the Missionaries out with this, but you cannot meet the Primitive Baptists with it! You just can not do it!) Here it is: if it were to read this way: "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, for the remission of sins," these verbs would show action toward the remission of sins. And yo could read it this way - now watch it: "Repent and be baptized" - for what? And I could not answer without getting in a tight place. "This is my blood of the new testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins." The very same Greek phrase: Eis apehsin hamartion. Now I read it as it would read translated: Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus the anointed," - "the anointed" for what? And you cannot answer without getting into it, because it shows action toward the remission of sins.
Joel Hume vs. Benjamin Franklin, Mt. Vernon, Indiana, 1853, p. 185 et al.
ELDER JOEL HUME: "The gentleman has at last found one connection of Scripture, as he supposes, in the second chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, 37th, 38th, 39th, 40th, and 41st verses, that will sustain his theory. Well, we will attend to this connection in due time for we have nothing to fear from anything that is found in the Bible. We have now driven the gentleman to his great rallying place, the connection upon which he principally relies for success upon the present proposition. Well, we shall be mistaken if the gentleman is not as anxious to get away from the second of Acts as he has been to get to it. We will now read the connection, beginning at the 37th verse: 'Now when they heard this they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the Apostles, men and brethren, what shall we do? 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 Ghost, 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. Then they that gladly received his word were baptize," &c. Now, before we proceed further, we would just remark that if we were surrounded with the same circumstances that Peter was, we would try to teach just as Peter did. Let it now be distinctly understood, and it should never be forgotten, that the characters addressed by Peter were pierced in the heart, and so powerfully were they wrought upon that they were made to cry out. Just let us now step back a little, and inquire if there is no influence of the Holy Spirit outside of the kingdom or body of Christ, what was it that made this vast multitude cry out so earnestly, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" Now it must be evident to all candid minds, that those persons were truly convicted for sin; had a discovery of their awful and justly condemned state as rebels against God; beheld his awful justice about to be executed upon them as the violators of his holy law. Now in view of all these things they were made to cry out, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" The Apostle very justly informs them. He says in answer to their enquiry, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins." Here we shall have use for the gentleman's definition of the word "for." He says it means "in order to." Now we deny this being the true meaning of the word, for in this text it may be rendered "in order to" in some cases, but most generally is to be understood to mean "because, because of, or in consideration of." Now, we take the ground, that "for" in this place simply means "because of." Now, any substitute that will give the same idea or make as good sense as the original word, is a good substitute; but if it does not convey the same idea, or make good sense, then the word substituted will not do. We will now introduce a few examples. It is said in the Scriptures, "who was delivered for our offences." Now let us read the text according to Mr. Franklin's theory, and it would read thus, "who was delivered in order to our offences." Now you all know this would not do. Well, let us now substitute "because of" and it would then read, "who was delivered because of our offences." This substitute conveys precisely the same sense that the original word "for" does. Hence it is a good substitute in this place, but again it is said, "for we have not followed cunningly devised fables." How would this look to read "in order to" we have not followed, &c. Now all present are ready to say, it looks very bad indeed. Well, just substitute "because," and you have precisely the same sense. We will introduce one more which will serve for the present. It is said in the new covenant, "for all shall know me from the least to the greatest." Let us now read to suit Mr. Franklin, "in order to all shall know me," &c. Now it must be evident to all present that such a substitute will not do. Well let us read the text with our substitute and we will have good sense at least, "because all shall know me from the least to the greatest," &c. You, my audience, can examine this subject more fully at your leisure, and the more you examine it, the more thoroughly you will be convinced that "for" must frequently mean "because" or "because of." Then we have the gentleman's strong text explained upon common sense principles, by which we show you that Elder Franklin has no proof for his theory in this text. But again mark the language used by the Apostle in the 41st verse, "then they that gladly received his word were baptized," &c. Now what do you suppose, my audience, was the cause of the great rejoicing among these people who had been pierced in the heart? We naturally suppose that their rejoicing grew out of an evidence or pardoned sins, for we know of nothing else that would have been likely to have produced it. We wish you to remember particularly these three important facts: first, the people addressed by Peter were pierced in the heart; secondly, the word "for" in this text means "because of"; thirdly, those pierced in the heart were made to rejoice, and surely there is nothing that would be more likely to cause them to rejoice than a manifestation of pardoned sins through the merits and blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Hence, with this view of the subject, you see, my audience, that the gentleman's stronghold is broken up, and he completely dislodged from his resting place, and as such he must seek for proof to sustain himself, somewhere else, for sure it is he has none in this connection.
Benjamin Lampton, notes from a debate with a Campbellite.
ELDER BENJAMIN LAMPTON: "BAPTIZED FOR REMISSION, ACTS 2:38. In no other place is the preposition eis into, or unto translated "for," when following the verb baptize. And here, if understood as in Mark 1:44, "for thy cleansing," which cleansing had previously taken place; or, as in the "sacrifices and offerings for sin," (see Hebrews 10: 6, 8, 10, 12, 18) where it was certainly not in order to sin, no false doctrine would follow. The highest Greek authorities say, "Eis - into, or unto - is joined with verbs which imply rest in a place, when a previous motion to, or into it, is implied." And "is used in the New Testament to express the point arrived at, and consequence of anything without motion of purpose." Liddell & Scott's Greek Lexicon. This plainly teaches that we are baptized unto remission resting in that when baptized, which the previous motion of faith had brought us into, viz: remission of sins, the "point arrived it." Thus we are baptized, not in order to remission, but unto what we profess. Eis is never rendered "in order to," when following any form of the verb baptize, and only in Acts 2:38, one instance, is it rendered "for," that not being its primary meaning: baptism not being a procuring cause, but a dedicatory sign or seal of confirmation. Eis, when following baptize, is uniformly and correctly rendered in, into, or unto. The following are all the instances where baptize eis, occurs in the New Testament:
Matthew 3:11. Baptize - eis unto repentance. Not in order to repentance.
Matthew 28:19. Baptizing - eis in the name of, &c., not in order to the name of, &c.
Acts 2:38. Baptized - eis for remission. Not in order to remission.
Acts 19:3. Eis unto what then wre ye baptized. Eis unto John's baptism. Not in order to, &c.
I. Cor. 1:13. Baptized eis in the name of Paul. Not to procure the name.
I. Cor. 1:15. Baptized eis in mine own name. Not to procure the name.
Romans 6:3. Baptized eis into Jesus Christ. Baptized into eis his death. Not to procure, &c.
Romans 6:4. Baptized into eis death. Not in order to procure his death.
I. Cor. 10:2. Baptized eis unto Moses. Not in order to procure Moses.
I. Cor. 12;13. By en in one spirit we are all baptized eis unto one body. Not to procure.
As, Matthew 3:11, they were not baptized before they repented - in order to repentance - to procure repentance; or, Romans 6:3, to procure Christ' death; or, I. Cor. 10:2, to procure Moses; but were baptized unto the repentance which they had before, and unto Moses whom they had long been the followers of. So we are not baptized in order to remission, but after we become the followers of Christ, unto remission, &c., unto all that religion which we have embraced by faith. The scripture form is "baptize unto," not "in order to." Those who refuse to be baptized unto Christ, reject the counsel of God against themselves: while the obedient justify God, being baptized, thus giving the answer of a good conscience toward God. Luke 7:29,30. Peter 3:21. Thus those who reject baptism in order to remission, are equally in error. Born again, or born of the spirit is regeneration. It is wrong to mangle this text as some do, by making born to mean both baptize and begotten, then reversing the order, all to avoid spirit baptism; it is a correcting of Nicodemus's allusion to the natural birth (see Bible meaning of water, Cruden's Concordance) and has no allusion to baptism. "Wash away thy sins" does not mean "sinner pardon thyself," but put away thy sins already pardoned, (see Isa. 1:16, Hebrews 12:1), not simply by baptism, but by all good works. "The like figure whereunto baptism doth also now ave us, "is to be understood as a figure, as Peter says. Only the converted or the good should be baptized, and these as Jesus gave example, not in order to remission, but to fulfill all righteousness. Matthew 3:15. The phrase "faith, repentance and baptism" is unscriptural in order, as "baptism in order to remission" is in doctrine. - quoting N. SUMMERBELL.
