I was recently written by this dear sister in Christ. The letter, with all forwarded elements, is posted below, after which I respond:
 

I am having a discussion with a person who is a baptism = salvation advocate.  I ventured into unfamiliar territory when I brought up the Greek rendering of certain Scriptures.  It is unfamiliar territory to me because I don't know Greek.  My Bible is a NASB Hebrew-Greek study Bible edited by Spiros Zodhiates, and I studied his comments as a starting point.  I also looked at various other dictionaries, lexicons and commentaries which presented many different and interesting approaches to the subject.  Right now, we are debating the meaning of the Greek word 'eis' in the infamous Acts 2:38.  I know that it is a preposition and I gather that its shade of meaning has to do with its position relative to the verb.  Would you please break this verse down for me in the Greek and explain the voice / tense / mood of this passage along the way.  God Bless, XXXX

Hello in Christ, XXXX:

I agree, his responses do seem to be unresponsive and unScriptural. Let's look at Acts 2:38:
 

The "Scholar's" statement: Your idea that the Greek preposition translated "for" in the KJV in this verse means "because of" is wrong for the following reasons. The verse commands repentance and baptism "for" (eis) the remission of sins. The repentance and the baptism are joined by the conjunction "and." They may not be separated. Whatever the repentance is "for" the baptism is "for" the same thing. One does not repent "because of" the remission of sins and the verse therefore is not saying that we are to be baptized "because of" the remission of sins. The ASV renders the preposition "unto," which cannot mean "because of" but means in order to obtain. One repents in order to obtain the remission of sin. One is baptized in order to obtain the remission of sins. The New American Standard Version gives the translation "and you shall receive." The New American Standard Update gives it "and you will receive." The RSV gives it "and you shall receive." I have not been able to find a single translation that renders the Greek preposition eis as "because of." Do you know of any? The scholarship of the world attests to the fact that the Greek preposition "eis," used in the accusative case, always looks forward and never backward. The English word "for" may look in either direction. Examples: "The man was executed for murder" (that would be because he had murdered and not in order for him to murder.) Again, "The housewife when to the store for bread (not because she already had bread but into to receive bread.) So, you see the English word can look in either direction, but this is not true of the Greek preposition -- it can only look forward and never backward.

My reply:

Acts 2:38  "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins {eis aphesin ton hamartion humon}, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

The big question is whether eis is "purposive" or "causual". A number of translations treat it as purposive. Wycliffe renders it "in to remyssioun of youre synnes", Rotherham "into remission of your sins", Goodspeed "in order to have your sins forgiven", and the KJV, RSV use "for the remission of your sins". Worrell uses "unto the remission of your sins", but in a footnote advocates the causual use when he says "Be immersed: to show your death, burial, and resurrection with Christ to newness of life (Rom 6:4; Col 2:12); not to bring all this about, but to declare your faith in Him, and show by a visible outward ordinance the change that has been wrought in you already by the Holy Spirit".

As to this scholar's statement "I have not been able to find a single translation that renders the Greek preposition eis as 'because of.'", he needs to see William's translation, which says: "Peter said to them, you must repent, and as an expression of it, let everyone of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, that you may have your sins forgiven". Perhaps he was only referring to the mainstream translations?

Robertson calls attention to the fact that the change in number from plural to singular marks a break in the thought, and draws attention to the causual rendering of eis in this case. "Metanoesate {repent ye - aorist imperative, second person plural} kai baptistheto {let him be baptized - aorist imperative passive, third person singular}. Robertson states "The first thing to do is make a radical and complete change of heart and life. Then let each one be baptized after this change has taken place (Robertson's Word Pictures, Volume III, pg 34). Robertson goes on to say, "My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission. So I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received (page 36).

Alford (Henry Alford, The Greek New Testament, Volume II, pg 24-25) states "The miserable absurdity of rendering metanoesate or "poenitentiam agite" by "do penance" or understanding it as referring to a course of external rites, is well exposed by this passage - in which the internal change of heart and purpose is insisted on, to be testified by admission into the number of Christ's followers."

The causual use of eis is found liberally throughout the Greek New Testament. For instance:

Matthew 12:41  "The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching {eis to kerugma} of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here."

There is no question that the Ninevites repented "because of" the preaching of Jonah, not "for" the preaching of Jonah. No other rendering makes sense.

As to this scholar's claim that -- "The scholarship of the world attests to the fact that the Greek preposition "eis," used in the accusative case, always looks forward and never backward.", this is untrue as I have just shown. Such a blanket statement is, indeed, certain to be full of holes! D.L. Cooper has observed that, in this type of context the retrospective idea is favored rather than the prospective, so that eis has "a backward look" (David Lipscomb Cooper, "The Use of EN and EIS in the New Testament and the Contemporaneous Nonliterary Papyri", pg 130). Robertson points out that the causual use of eis is just as good Greek as the purposive use, and says "illustrations of both usages are numerous in the New Testament and the Koine generally" (Robertson's Word Pictures, Vol III, p 35).

There are a number of passages in Scripture where the condition for salvation is stated with "no mention" of baptism. See Mark 6.12; Luke 13.3; 24.47; Acts 3.19; 17.30; 26.20; 2 Cor 7.9; 2 Peter 3.9. If baptism is a requirement for salvation, did God forget to make mention of it in these passages? If it is, indeed, a key element, then surely it would not have been missed in these passages. Repentance and faith always precede baptism (Acts 8.36; 9.5-18; 10.47; Mark 16.16).

Let's look at this from another perspective. I have the dubious distinction of being baptized 4 different times. As a young child, I was sprinkled with water in a Presbyterian baptism. I was saved in a Pentecostal church, and was baptized by immersion "In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost". Later I changed denominations, and became a United Pentecostal follower. Their method of baptism is to immerse you "in the name of Jesus Christ", just as Acts 2:38 seems to prescribe. When I changed denominations again, years later, and became a Southern Baptist, I was baptized "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit".

Now, if baptism saves me, which one did it? I say this not to be arrogant, but it is a fair question. If baptism is a key ingredient of salvation, then exactly how must I be baptized? Some Biblical texts say "in the name of Jesus", others "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit". Should I be baptized by immersion, or will sprinkling do? If baptized by immersion, should I be immersed once (in the name of Jesus; or in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit), or should I be submerged three times (in the name of the Father [submerge], the Son [submerge], the Holy Spirit [submerge]). As one who has been exposed to nearly every mainline denomination in America, I know that there are many different methods for baptism. And finally, if I am to be baptized as a key element to my salvation, where am I to be baptized? That is, can I be baptized in a baptismal pool, or must I go to the river? The early Christians followed Jesus Christ in baptism by going to a river or natural body of water, yet most Christians today (even Church of Christ, who believe in Baptismal Regeneration) use a baptismal pool.

Thus is the problem of adding the Law to Grace. You never know when to stop. Of course, you knew that, but I'm a preacher (forgive me ;-) and I love the Grace of God, not the Law that chokes that Grace.

Let's look at 1 Peter 3:20-21:
 

The "Scholar's" statement: This verse emphatically states that baptism saves. The salvation of Noah and his family came through, or by, water -- Peter says so. The water was the line of debarkation between the old world of sin and the fresh new world. In that exact same way, Peter says, baptism saves you -- that is it is the line of debarkation between be saved and being lost. It is the point at which the salvation comes, says the new covenant.

My Response:

1 Peter 3:20-21 "Which sometime were disobedient, when once the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. [21] The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ"

First, the 8 souls that were saved by water were never immersed in water - they rode in an ark above the waterline. But, if we are to make it that the baptism of Noah saves, then taking it quite literally the baptism that saves is the one that sprinkles. For the only baptism Noah was under, in immersion, was that of the rain falling on the ark.

Obviously the baptism that Noah underwent is far different from the water baptism that the believer is to undergo. This is why Peter uses the words, "The like figure". Here's what Wuest ("Word Studies in the Greek New Testament", Vol II, pg 108) says:

"The words "the like figure" are in the Greek ho antitupon. The question as to whether the word "figure" refers back to the ark or the word "water" is easily settled by the Greek grammar involved in this expression, for the relative pronoun ho is neuter, the word "ark" is feminine, and the word "water" is neuter. The relative pronoun agrees with its antecedent in gender. Therefore the word "figure" which is neuter and construed grammatically with the pronoun ho goes back to the word "water". The word "figure" is the translation of antitupon which means "the counterpart of reality". The Greek word "baptism" is in apposition with the word "figure" ... water baptism is clearly in the Apostle's mind, not the baptism by the Holy Spirit, for he speaks of the waters of the flood as saving the inmates of the ark, and in this verse, of baptism saving believers. But he says that it only saves them as a COUNTERPART. That is, water baptism is the counterpart of the reality, salvation. It can only save as a counterpart, not actually. The Old Testament sacrifices were counterparts of the reality, the Lord Jesus. They did not actually save the believer, only in type ... so water baptism only saves the believer in type."

Wuest goes on to translate verse 21 as: "which (water) as a counterpart now saves you, (namely) baptism ..."

This verse does not say that water baptism saves you, but does state that water baptism is figurative of your salvation.

Let's look at Acts 10:34-48:
 

The "Scholar's" Statement: Receiving gifts of the Holy Spirit has nothing to do with salvation. Elymas received a direct operation of the Holy Spirit, but he was not a saved man (See Acts 13:8-11). For your argument to stand up you must find a verse that makes receiving a direct influence of the Holy Spirit, apart from the word, a condition of salvation. If you find the verse, let me know. The truth is that no direct gift of the Holy Spirit was ever required of any person in order for that person to be saved. The direct gift of the Holy Spirit is a promise and not a command. One does not obey promises, but can only obey commands. Corenelius and those who were with him were commanded to be baptized (Acts 10:48). If they could be saved -- and in fact were saved -- without obeying this command, then it follows that the commands of God do have to be obeyed in order for one to be saved. But faith is a command of God -- and so is repentance -- and so is confession. If it is not necessary to obey command to be right with God, then we need not believe, or repent, or confess Jesus as Lord -- according to your argument, which is clearly wrong. No one receives the baptism in the Holy Spirit today.

As for Acts 10:34-48, this "scholar" did not read the context that you presented to him. The Bible says that these Gentiles "received the Holy Ghost" (Acts 10.47), not just a gift of the Spirit. Peter made the distinction that he felt they were indwelt by the Spirit, just as the Jews who were Christians were, and because of this allowed their baptism. Of course, this scholar makes another false blanket statement to support his claims, "No one receives the baptism in the Holy Spirit today.". I suppose this scholar believes that this Scripture is null and void:

1 Corinthians 12:12-13 "For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. [13] For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit."

For it is the baptism of the Spirit that unites the believer into the body of Christ. I have several studies on my site that explain the baptism of the Spirit, so I won't go into that at this time. However, I can say that most conservative Biblical scholars would not make such a statement. Though Christians differ on their view of the baptism of the Spirit (some believe it to be a second blessing after salvation, others like myself feel it to be an occurrence that happens at the point of salvation and is non experiential), this is the first man I've met that discounts it completely. I had a series of lectures through Dallas Theological Seminary several many years ago that went into the baptism of the Spirit extensively, and as conservative as they come.

Let me end with this:

Colossians 2:11-12 "In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: [12]  Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead."

We are circumcised, believers in Christ, because of the circumcision MADE WITHOUT HANDS. We were buried with Him in the baptism of the Spirit, not by water baptism (which is done with man's hands). The believer should be baptized, should follow his Lord's command to be baptized as a testimony of the faith that previously saved him. Yet there is no clear logic or Scripture that declares that salvation only comes because of water baptism.  If you try to make it so, then you bring up the idiocies of "what type of baptism" which would be essential if baptism is, indeed, a key to salvation.

- Pastor David