I get emails.
I love reading your blog and have reached the same conclusions on Acts 2:38, but I will say I don’t know how to work around what one of the commenter’s said: “Jay can conjecture till the Lord returns that be “baptize for the remission of sins” really means “if you get dunked you get the remission of sins no matter what you think about baptism.” He can conjecture that eis is used here to demonstrate automatic result rather than motive (although both are lexicographicaly possible). But conjecture as he might, it just doesn’t fit with Acts 22:16, “get up and be baptized and have your sins washed away calling on the name of the Lord.” The notion there of calling on the name of the Lord indicates an appeal must be made and that Ananias puts Paul to mind that he is being baptized to have his sins washed away explains that the appeal is for the remission of sins. Comparing Acts 2:38 to Acts 22:16 shows that baptism is not “get dunked and you get the remission of sins no matter what” but that it is an appeal for the remission of sins. You have to call on the name of the Lord, beseech him for forgiveness, not just get dunked as a sign of a forgiveness that you erroneously think you already have. More verses could be brought in to show that he tenor of the Scriptures is that baptism must be viewed as an appeal, but it is not necessary.”
I think you made some good points on Acts 2:38 ( eis ) but, how do we explain it in light of what the commenter stated on your blog? I am struggling big time with baptism and have taken the liberal road for sometime now, but I keep having people ask me about motive and purpose. You made some great points as to forgiveness being the result of baptism, and your case on eis was great too, but Acts 22:16 and 1 Peter 3:21 seem to suggest motive and purpose.
If you have time, please help me better understand this in light of Acts 22:16 / 1 Peter 3:21.
The man emailing me is referring to Josh Keele’s comment found here.
For readers not familiar with my views on baptism, you should go to —
Should We Re-baptize the Baptists?
Baptism, Part 1 (Introduction)
Baptism, Part 3 (The Traditional View)
Baptism, Part 4 (Arguments for Non-essentiality)
Baptism, Part 5 (The Outside the Covenant Argument: Patriarchal and Mosaic Dispensations)
Baptism, Part 6 (The Outside the Covenant Argument: Christian Dispensation)
Baptism, Part 7 (Additional Arguments)
Baptism, Part 8 (God’s Right to Make Exceptions)
Baptism, Part 9 (”God Did Not Send Me to Baptize”)
Baptism, Part 10 (Final Thoughts)
It’s a bunch of posts, but the gist is this: God will save us based on faith and repentance despite an imperfect baptism. After all, God hardly requires us to have perfect faith or perfect repentance. And there are many examples of God accepting people who did not meet the covenant-means of salvation in effect at the time — sacrifice, descent from Abraham, whatever — and no examples of God refusing anyone who comes to him in genuine faith and penitence.
The reader asks how I reconcile this view with Acts 22:16 and 1 Peter 3:21 in the context of typical Baptist baptism, that is, baptism to obey God in a belief that the convert had already been saved when he came to faith or prayed the “believer’s prayer.”
Well, here’s how I see it. (Fortunately, I have finally unpacked my library and got my commentaries and other books organized.)
Acts 22:16
Acts 22:16 is an instruction to the convert that he be “calling on the name of the Lord” when baptized. Arguably, this is grammatically what baptism is — a symbolic call on God.
But what does “calling on the name of the Lord” mean? F. F. Bruce argues in the New International Commentary that “the invocation of Jesus as Lord would declare his intention of submitting to the divine ordinance.”
Of course, Paul was submitting to baptism, but calling on Jesus’ name would mean that he is summitting to baptism as the Lord’s command. “Lord” is not Jesus’ first name. In context, “Lord” refers to Jesus as having the authority of God (whom the Jews had traditionally called “Lord”). Hence, Paul instructs us that the confession of a new convert should be “Jesus is Lord” (Rom 9:10), referring both to his divinity and his authority.
Now, maybe Ananias had something else in mind. It’s hard to say for sure. It’s just as likely, I think, that “name of the Lord” means “authority of the Lord” as I’ve argued in a different context regarding “in the name of the Lord.” In the Greek, “calling on” is one word. There is no preposition for “on.” It could be translated as well “invoking” or “appealing to,” that is, invoking the power of Jesus as Lord.
1 Pet 3:21
1 Pet 3:21 refers to a “pledge of a good conscience toward God” (NIV). The word translated pledge has been the subject of some controversy. The ESV translates “as an appeal to God for a good conscience.” The NIV makes the phrase a reference to repentance. The ESV makes it a plea for forgiveness.
Alan M. Stibbs, in the Tyndale commentary series, says the papyrii use the same word to refer to the answer given in making a formal contract under Roman law. In this case, the NIV is right. The “answer” (as in the KJV) is a commitment to keep a promise.
Barclay interprets the word thusly —
There is a very vivid picture here. The word, which Peter uses for pledge is eperotema; in Greek this was a technical business and legal word; in Latin the word for the same process is stipulatio. In every business contract there was a definite question and answer which made the contract legal and binding. The question was: “Do you accept the terms of this contract, and bind yourself to observe them?” And the answer, before witnesses was: “Yes.” Without that question and answer the contract was not valid. … Peter is, in effect, saying that in baptism God said to the man coming direct from heathenism: “Do you accept the terms of my service? Do you accept its privileges and promises, and do you undertake its responsibilities and its demands?”
Now, I think this is right and important. We tend to grossly under-emphasize the meaning of repentance in our conversions. We sell salvation and beg for baptisms while all-too-often understating the commitment we’re calling people to. Peter tells us that baptism is all about commitment.
Analysis
It seems pretty clear that 1 Pet 3:21 has nothing to say about the person being baptized subjectively intending to have his sins forgiven. But Acts 22:16 certainly could mean that. After all, Ananias told Paul he’d be washing his sins away. But it’s hardly a certain conclusion. Nonetheless, let’s assume that this is the case.
As Lipscomb, Sewell, Campbell, and many others have argued, there are many phrases that could be taken as baptismal instructions. Matt 28:19 tells us to baptize in the names of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Acts 2:38 (and the account in Acts 5 of the Samaritan conversion) tells us that baptism is when we are to receive the Spirit. Romans 6 tells us that we are baptized into Jesus’ death “in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life” (6:4).
How many of us were baptized consciously aware that we were to receive the Spirit? to be buried into Jesus’ death? to “live a new life”? What if the immerser forgets to mention all three names?
We don’t get to pick and choose which elements of baptism are essential and which are not. Neither is it all or none. You see, Acts 22:16 is not an instruction manual on baptism. If it were, why didn’t Ananias say “calling on the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit”? Or “in order to live a new life”?
Rather, what we see in the scriptures is a clear demonstration that baptism is, in the normal case, the moment when God, by the power of Jesus’ sacrifice, does many things — forgiving us, regenerating us, giving us the Spirit, adding us to the church, giving us new life, signifying a pledge to keep our end of our covenant with God, etc., etc. And no baptism passage mentions all these things. Converts were instructed on some of these but never on all of these.
We tend to focus on forgiveness of sins for two reasons —
* First, we’ve spent the last 200 years arguing with Baptists about this one, so much so that we think it’s what baptism is all about, when in fact baptism is about a great many other things as well.
* Second, we’re heirs of the Protestant Reformation which was about salvation by faith — and which very much focused on justification theology, as though Christianity were entirely centered on “getting saved.” As a result, our entire thought process about how to do church has been about getting people saved, that is, baptized. And we have a very incomplete, very inadequate theology of what it means to be saved.
Thanks to the work of such men as N. T. Wright, Stanley Hauerwas, and many others, we’re developing a more mature, more complete understanding of how getting saved fits into the much, much larger picture of what becoming a Christian means. And it’s changing everything.
And so, I guess my point is that our tendency to see “for the remission of sins” as the essential purpose of baptism is to focus on only one of many purposes for reasons that are extraneous to the scriptures. We don’t insist on any other element (besides the water) as essential. I know of only one person who argues that baptism is only effective if undertaken knowing that the Spirit will be received. And yet we readily argue that the baptism doesn’t “take” if the convert doesn’t understand that salvation won’t be received until immersion.
Finally, I’m guessing you’ve read my post on Acts 2:38 and Baptist baptism but not the later posts (links are above) that deal with baptism more generally. You see, I’ve argued at some length that God will not damn anyone who has an imperfect baptism and who comes to him with genuine faith and penitence. The reason I never answered the post who refer to is that the following posts do just that.
You see, even if someone demonstrates that baptism should be for the remission of sins — consciously understood by the Christian — I don’t really disagree. I just disagree that a misunderstanding of when God saves by grace damns. I think it clearly does not.
Jay:
You have embodied so much of what I have felt and thought for a long time about baptism. When ever I share thoughts like this people jump to the conclusion that I am suggesting that we no longer baptize. When in reality I am not. The church where my brothers go Gateway http://www.gatewaychurch.com/ baptizes thousands each year. But here is the difference they really become disciples, not just active in church work but in personal transformation. Why? Because they really focus on leading people to an actual faith in Jesus. Not just a forgiveness of sins, or subscription from one church doctrine to another, not just a get out of hell free card but an actual faith in Jesus. It is truly amazing 80% of their congregation comes from true lost and unchurched backgrounds and is 30 years old or younger. Every time I go there (Gateway) I am amazed because there some one else up their giving public testimony about the amazing things Jesus is doing in the life; overcoming addictions to restoring broken relationships. There is more transformation there in one weekend than usually takes place in a traditional congregation all year. I am convinced that this unequivocal transformation is what is so powerful in reaching the young skeptical generation. Reggie McNeal says this “ The power of the Gospel is lost when church members can subscribe to all the doctrinal positions and follow all the religious acts and rituals but have little to no story of personal transformation.” All the new disciples there at Gateway will tell that is God that changed them but they had to make the conscious on going decision to believe in Him and let Him do his work. It is an on going intentional belligerent decision based on real faith in Jesus not religious dogma. The idea that when we were baptized that God just zapped us and that was it or we were just “saved” without any further transformation is a lie developed by the modernism that was at the foundation of thinking in so many fundamental religious groups that started in the United States in that last 200 years. Transformation is immediate and a process. Faith is immediate and a process. Because of the way we taught and practiced baptism it was just immediate with little process following. Until we teach baptism as a fundamental change in thinking (pledging of one heart toward God) rather than a work of forgiveness or salvation, as Peter says we will continue to have this problem. Until we focus on bringing people to real faith in “Jesus” not just pet doctrines and religious dogma; answering their theological questions we will continue to baptize but make few disciples.
I've had the same reactions as Joe when I have voiced my views about what one must understand at the point of baptism. People think I'm saying something I'm not saying, and they miss what I really am trying to say. It's hard to get beyond that with some folks.
There certainly are *some* facts about baptism that are not required knowledge at the point of baptism. Paul had to explain the implications of baptism to the Romans — but he did not call for them to be rebaptized due to their incomplete understanding. Someone might say that the aspects taught in Acts 2:38-39 must be understood a priori, since those aspects were taught prior to baptism. But the necessity of comprehending those facts prior to baptism is not explicitly stated. It is an inference, made by fallible humans.
If failing to understand the connection between baptism by immersion and forgiveness renders the baptism invalid, then as far as I can tell there were no saved persons for over a thousand years. That is an untenable position IMO.
Oh Joe,
"intentional belligerent decision."
Now that rings! Telling our new disciples "Go get 'em tiger!"
May God be praised and give us the victory in Christ!
Joe says it plainly: " We tend to grossly under-emphasize the meaning of repentance in our conversions. " I am not a a "died in the wool" church of Christ member, so I see things from a more evangelical, and Protestant, point of view.
This is the biggest reason I am beginning to question all this emphasis on baptism. I hear no real preaching against sin, no preaching about eternal damnation, no reason for anyone to think there is anything they need to do besides parrot "Yes" to the question "Do you believe that Jesus is the Son of God?" and get wet. That is unscriptural!
The Ethiopian replied "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God" to the qualifier "If you believe with all your heart ". John tells us "Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God." It surely involves 1. confessing oneself a sinner
2. confessing Jesus Christ as Savior, Lord and God
3. being baptized as a confessed believer
The first two are sadly missing in every "conversion" I have witnessed in the CoC.
I don't think I've ever seen anyone tremble or become fearful of God's wrath in a church of Christ service. I see no fear of God preached, or sin shown to be as ugly as it is to our God. No, instead I hear the mantra "we are all sinners" and how it's advisable that we need to seriously consider "letting go" of our favorite sins. I think the emphasis on hating sin and hungering and thirsting for righteousness is completely overlooked. The real emphasis is on "When were you baptized? Why? How soon?" not "Did you recognize your hopeless condition, have you forsaken your former life, asked God for forgiveness, and confessed Jesus as your Lord?"
Also, I have yet to see anyone truly transformed by any message I've heard preached in the church of Christ. Many have told me how they were raised "in the church" and were baptized long before they actually came to faith, or an understanding of it.
Expository preaching is rarer than good news in the newspaper. "Feel good" extrapolations of scripture in a topical sermon are most common. So, everyone leaves feeling as good, or bad, as anyone else. The message is "We're all crummy sinners and should take comfort in that fact". A win for God in some small area is at least progress!
I see more changed lives outside the churches of Christ than I do in them. I'm am becoming very disillusioned with the whole idea of baptism because I know personally and see regularly that baptism does not change anyone. Only a person who is truly convicted of their sorry state and hopelessness without God can truly repent and I have seen no real evidence of this in my almost two years of being in the churches of Christ.
I came to this fellowship because I wanted to find a church that practiced good works and believed the Bible. But, along with baptism, I see a tendency to view taking communion as a means of grace. When, for any reason, a person doesn't take communion or can't make a service, it's almost an imperative to make sure they get their communion cracker and cup. Something is wrong with that, because I see nothing in the Bible that defines communion as anything more than a remembrance of Christ's offering for us. There's nothing wrong with weekly communion, except when a person is made to feel they MUST take it to remain in God's good grace.
Stephen (Prodigal Knot), I am with you on this, and I am very concerned we are moving away from the gospel and presenting "another gospel" – one void of preaching against sin, no preaching about eternal damnation and very litte about Jesus and why He came.
I have seen sermons preached that were void of anything about Jesus and void of anything about sin – but then the call to repent and be baptized at the closing of the sermon.
I brought someone with me one Sunday and a church member on the back row kept telling this sinner "go to the front and get baptized." We need to get our focus back on Jesus and why He came and then maybe they will be hurt in their hearts and cry out "what shall we do?"
Great post Jay !!!
Randy
Your position basically amounts to "God is a nice guy and will save nice guys, so put the Bible down and just be a nice guy." Nice try.
Alan says "There certainly are *some* facts about baptism that are not required knowledge at the point of baptism. Paul had to explain the implications of baptism to the Romans — but he did not call for them to be rebaptized due to their incomplete understanding."
Paul did not establish the church at Rome, and he had never been to Rome before when he wrote the letter, and he did not really know anything about their particular situation, so the notion that they were ignorant of baptism's purpose and Paul was forced to explain it to them is nothing but total bunk. See Romans 1:13 where he says he had often purposed to come see them (so he might have some fruit among them as he does among other Gentiles) but he was hindered from doing so. Yet he expresses his hope to do so eventually. This shows they were already fully established by someone else (probably Peter and his "son" Mark [1 Pet 5:13] who also is "sister's son to Barnabas" [Col 4:10] perhaps meaning that Peter's wife is Barnabas' sister, which is probably why Paul was hindered from coming, since he had mistreating poor John Mark in the big split between him and Barnabas [Acts 15:38], and probably did so because of Mark's association with Peter as Peter's "son" seeing as how Paul thought of Peter as only "seeming to be something", as he says in Galatians 2:6,9 and who could add nothing to him and his supreme revelation of a bright light (for Paul saw no man, only a blinding light) and a disembodied voice that could not even be easily recognized as the voice of Jesus and hence this disembodied voice had to be asked "Who art thou, Lord?" [Acts 9:5]
And the fact that Paul who was hindered from coming, knows nothing of their particular situation is obvious from the fact that he doesn't mention any particular situation! He merely explains the relation of Jews and Gentiles under the New Testament, which presumably would be good information for all Christians everywhere. And in the midst of explaining how that Jews and Gentiles are equal, he uses baptism as an illustration of their equality. He is not teaching them baptism as if they didn't know about it, but is showing that even though the Jews have their vaunted circumcision they still need baptism, which shows the utter uselessness of circumcision as a "I'm better than you" badge.
In short, if you read Romans as if Paul established that congregation or knew anything about its circumstances, you will end up in all sort of weird errors. If you read it merely as a discourse on the relation of Jews to Gentiles in the Lord, then and only then will you understand it. If you read it as something else, like a theological treatise on justification by faith alone, then you will probably end up believing in the false doctrines of inherited sin and arbitrary predestination and justification by faith alone and become a Calvinist nutjob.
This is why Peter warns us in 2nd Pet 3:15-16 "And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."
Paul is a dangerous ego. When you begin to base things on Paul's writings and set him in some way against Peter, you are in big trouble. Peter says "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." (Acts 2:38) So the heretic immediately jumps to Paul and takes "Christ sent me not to baptize," out of context. (1 Cor 1:17) But even that statement of Paul, in context, is shown to mean nothing more than that preaching the gospel must precede baptism and that he is glad he PERSONALLY baptized only a few of the Corthinians since some of them were saying "I am of Paul" and he did not want to be accused of having baptized in HIS OWN name. But Paul will forever be twisted to invalidate true Christianity and he will forever have his faction that says "I follow Paul" who follow Paul indeed, except they misinterpret all his words, of whom are Alan and John Calvin.