“Of” or “Because of”. Makes no diff.
You cannot have remission of sins without repentance. You cannot have remission of sins without baptism.
Interesting Read...
Baptism For The Remission Of Sins
by David Padfield
Just seven weeks after Christ’s death on the cross the first gospel sermon this side of Calvary was preached. After Peter accused his audience of crucifying the Son of God, they cried out “What shall we do?” (Acts 2:37). Peter announced the terms of Divine pardon: “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). This passage makes an inseparable connection between baptism and the remission of sins. It makes the remission of sins depend upon baptism in the same sense as it is made to depend upon repentance. Through the years, many attempts have been made to negate the force of this passage.
I have never understood how Baptist preachers can make repentance a condition for salvation and then exclude baptism. They usually claim that repentance is “for” (”in order to obtain”) the remission of sins and baptism is for (”because of”) the remission of sins. However, the preposition “for” cannot express two different relationships to the two words-what it means to baptism it means to repentance. If repentance is essential to salvation, then so is baptism.
In several debates with Baptist preachers I have illustrated this verse with a chart showing two box cars on a train track. “Repentance” is one car and “baptism” is the other. They are joined by a small coupler — the word “and.” Because these cars are joined by the coupler, whatever direction one car travels, the other has to move in the same direction. If baptism is “because of” the remission of sins, then so is repentance. If repentance is “in order to obtain” the remission of sins, then so is baptism.
A parallel passage can be found in Acts 3:19, “Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out.” Repentance occupies the same place in both passages. In Acts 3:19 “be converted” occupies the place that “be baptized” is given in Acts 2:38. They are therefore identical in act and purpose-whatever baptism is for in Acts 2:38, conversion is for in Acts 3:19.
more....
http://www.padfield.com/1995/sins.html
For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel . . . “ (1 Cor. 1:14-17)
Peter downplays baptism for salvation... why? Cause Baptism is not required.
“You cannot have remission of sins without baptism.”
1. Remission of sins comes first when someone entrusted themselves to Christ.
2. Baptism is an act commanded to believers *because of* the remission of sins that already occurred.
That is what it means in Greek.
This statement is quite true, but not in the manner which you have presented it. The verse which makes the connection is Acts 2:38, in which Peter commands the hearers to first repent, and after that to be baptized. The English interpretation of what he said, as given in the KJB, is as follows:
"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."
The connecting word is the preposition "for", and a whole doctrine of salvation is for some built on this word. In that interpretation, the view is that the baptism precipitates the remission, the forgiveness, of ones sins.This would mean that without being baptized, God would have to send one to Hell.
However, Peter was not speaking English, but Koine Greek, and the word εις (eis, sounds like "ice" to us). In the Greek, this is a wide-ranging preposition having several meanings, of which one (depending on the context) is "into, with a view toward, looking forward to" the following condition to which it relates the verb, the action.
If this were the only possible meaning possible for the preposition "eis" the substance of your following argument would also be true.
But that is not the only meaning allowed for "eis." It can also have:
- the hostile positional use translated "against";
- the telic or purpose use translated "for," "for the purpose of," or "in order to";
- the causal use translated "because of";
- the referential use translated "in regard to" or "with reference to";
- the predicate use governing a noun, pronoun, or substantive to express equivalence and ttanslated "as";
- and finally, the foundational use, of which the phrase from Matthew 12:41 is an example:
οτι μετενοησαν εις το κηρυγμα ιωνα
"they repented on the basis of Jonah's preaching"
The one that follows the doctrine of salvation by faith alone is the one clearly applicable in other Scripture is that "eis" has the foundational sense; that is "on the basis of" (or possibly "because of"). The doctrine of salvation by faith alone (of which repentance is only the other side of the coin) in which salvation given is based only on remission of sins on account of repentance and faith on Christ's substitutionary death, exemplary resurrection, and entrance into Heaven.
The doctrine of baptismal regeneration is a shaky reed counting only on the misinterpretation of the preposition of the word "eis", and inconsistent with the overall reliance of Jesus alone as the Savior of men, not their willingness nor opportunity to submit themselves to immersion.
Baptismal regeneration is another gospel, and one to be anathematized. And this is why you don't understand the true gospel preached by sound evangelists that separate the act of baptism and its entailed necessary work of action, from repentance, μετανοέω (metanoehoh), a change only of mind and which does not involve work, only a permanent realignment of one's sense of fearing God, the dread of disappointing or disobeying His commands, a change in rebirth available only through His Beloved Son.