I'll take number four for $100.00.
This is from one Michael Turner:
Those who try to twist the scriptures to justify their wrong position on baptism are defeated by the very book they seek to pervert. In Acts 2:38, we find not just the preposition eis, but the entire prepositional phrase eis aphesin harmartion, which is rendered “for the remission of sins” by the translators. Fortunately, and to the downfall of those who would assert their particular doctrine above that which is written, the Holy Spirit has unquestionably fixed the use of eis aphesin harmartion by allowing it to be used in a passage in which its use cannot be doubted. In Matthew 26:28, Jesus made the statement, “For this is My blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins [emphasis mine—AT].” This is the same prepositional phrase that is used in Acts 2:38. Therefore, those who support the “because of” argument in Acts 2:38 would, in order to be consistent, have to make Matthew 26:28 to be saying that Jesus shed His blood “because of” the remission of sins, which would, in essence, have the Lord saying His blood would be shed for something already accomplished. Who can believe it? Was the Lord’s blood shed “for,” “unto,” or “for the purpose of” the remission of sins; or was it shed because the remission of sins had already occurred? If it was shed “for,” “unto,” or “for the purpose of” the remission of sins, as Matthew 26:28 clearly teaches, then what justification do our Baptist friends have for translating the same prepositional phrase as “because of” in Acts 2:38? The only reason I can think of is the justification of their erroneous doctrine.