In a new volume on Greek grammar, Dr. Daniel Wallace (of the Dallas Theological Seminary), has made a monumental concession which devastates a common denominational rationalization relative to the meaning of eis in Acts 2:38.

It has long been known that denominationalists, welded to the theory of salvation by “faith alone,” repudiate the connection between baptism and the forgiveness of sins. Some, formally sound on this issue, now are capitulating to sectarian error. Take a brief look at this issue with us.

In Acts 2:38 Peter contended that baptism is “for” (eis) the remission of sins. Since many religionists deny this biblical truth, they seek comfort in a supposed parallel that they imagine nullifies the force of eis in Acts 2:38. Some imagine they have found a solution to their theological problem in Matthew 12:41. But have they?

The Bible explicitly teaches that immersion is “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38).

In a previous article, I inadvertently mischaracterized Professor Daniel Wallace’s religious affiliation. He kindly corrected the matter. Here is my response.

One dirty little trick used to confuse sincere people about the purpose of baptism.

Must baptism be administered “in the name of Jesus” only to be valid?

When the plan of salvation is so easy to understand, why do some go to such great lengths to obscure it?

Many denominationalists have long argued that “for the remission of sins” in Acts 2:38 can mean “because of” (i.e. – be baptized because your sins have been remitted). But the same term is found in Matthew 26:28 – clearly indicating the meaning of the term.

Tucked away in Romans 14:9 are some rich nuggets of truth that will enhance your faith.

Was Jesus Christ “immersed” in the Jordan River, or did John merely pour water upon the Lord’s head? Some scholars have attempted to argue that the case for Jesus’ “immersion” cannot be proved. But what does the evidence actually reveal?

Poignant words concisely spoken are echoed in worship assemblies every Lord’s Day. In remembrance of him, Christians recall the words of Jesus, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins” (Matt. 26:28).

What will be the state of the wicked after their death, prior to judgment?

Scholarly sources may be helpful, but good Bible students recognize any human source can be biased or flawed. God’s Word is the ultimate standard of faith and practice.

Who was John the Baptist? What was his relationship to Jesus?

Why was Jesus immersed at the hands of John the Baptizer? Many have a difficult time understanding this pivotal event in the life of our Lord.

Since the late second century A.D., controversy has existed concerning the nature of the Godhead. Is God a solitary person—simply manifested in three forms? Or do three separate personalities exist, each of whom possesses the nature of deity? Is the popular doctrine of the Trinity true or false?

In response to a recent article in which we argued that instrumental music in Christian worship is without divine authority, a critic replied by suggesting that we practice many things in Christianity that are bereft of authority. One example he cited was the use of Bible translations. In this week’s Penpoints, we refute this baseless quibble.

Does Matthew 18:20 sanction the practice of forsaking the Lord’s day assemblies, in deference to private assemblies for social or recreational purposes? Some so claim, but what is the contextual significance of this instruction from Christ?

Why was forgiveness promised to the Israelites when the New Testament says their sacrifices could not provide forgiveness for sins?