[This is a bit long but doesn’t easily break into pieces. Next post will be Friday (Lord willing), to give time to reflect (and watch football. Roll Tide!)]
Long-time reader Royce asks in a comment,
True repentance means one turns away from something and toward another. Can anyone explain why “repent” isn’t the key word in Acts 2:38 rather than “baptized”?
Excellent question, and one I’ve been pondering these last few days.
Repent
Consider this. In Peter’s Acts 2 sermon, prior to v. 38, he does not charge the audience with moral failings or failure to obey God’s commands. Rather, he accuses them of failing to recognize Jesus as Messiah and therefore crucifying him.
(Act 2:36-37 ESV) 36 “Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord [king or YHWH] and Christ [Messiah], this Jesus whom you crucified.” 37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?”
In support of his argument that Jesus is Messiah, he argues that the now-occurring outpouring of the Spirit heralds the dawn of the Kingdom per the prophets. It’s all about Jesus being Messiah and the Spirit being outpoured, all as promised by the prophets.
(Act 2:16-21 ESV) 16 But this is what was uttered through the prophet Joel:
17 “‘And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams;
18 even on my male servants and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy.
19 And I will show wonders in the heavens above and signs on the earth below, blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke;
20 the sun shall be turned to darkness and the moon to blood, before the day of the Lord comes, the great and magnificent day.
21 And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord [YHWH] shall be saved.'”
The Jews in Jerusalem for Pentecost were devout men and women. Many had traveled there for a once-in-a-lifetime pilgrimage that took months of travel or else very perilous, very expensive sea travel. They weren’t in need of moral reformation. They were in need of faith in Jesus and the outpoured Spirit.
So repent from what? Well, unbelief. “Repent” is indeed used at times to refer to repenting from a particular sin or from a sinful lifestyle, but in this case, “repent” means change from your unbelief to belief in Jesus as Messiah and Lord.
The same use of “repent” is true of Peter’s sermon in Acts 3 and in Acts 5:29-32. And compare —
(Act 11:15-18 ESV) 15 As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning. 16 And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ 17 If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?” 18 When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, “Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life.”
“Repentance”? From what? Cornelius was a good man, a God-fearer. Not a moral reprobate. He needed to give his allegiance to Jesus, to change from being a near-proselyte to an actual believer committed to following Jesus. (A God-fearer was a Gentile who’d not been circumcised to become a proselyte Jew.) “Believed in the Lord Jesus Christ” is parallel with “God has granted repentance that leads to life.” After all, Peter did not preach against Cornelius life of sin, just his need to believe in Jesus.
There is no dichotomy. It’s not binary. That is, “repent” on the lips of an apostle doesn’t mean either “believe” or “stop sinning,” one or the other. Both ideas are there, with a greater emphasis on one or the other in various passages. To the apostles, to have “faith” in Jesus meant following him, meant being faithful, meant giving him one’s loyalty, meant living according the will of Jesus, meant striving to become like Jesus. It’s all in there. “Repent” includes “take up your cross and follow me.”
But that doesn’t lend itself to a Five-Step Baconian Enlightenment reduction of Christianity, and so we don’t see what is plainly there. In fact, we don’t even bother to read the sermons — because we already know the answer.
Most likely, our understanding of “repent” comes from the Frontier Revivalism of the Second Great Awakening, which gave birth to several denominations, including the Churches of Christ. Preachers often did preach to moral reprobates who really did need to give up a life of sin. (And they should have, and the preachers were right to insist.)
In short, the Churches of Christ (and most other denominations) reduce “repent” to “become moral,” thereby eliminating the relationship with Jesus anticipated by the word. “Repent” isn’t just being good. It’s about adopting the commitments and understandings that the gospel demands. It’s essential to entering the kingdom. It has a moral element (as John the Baptist taught) but also includes following Jesus (as John the Baptist taught).
(Luk 3:10-14 ESV) And the crowds asked him, “What then shall we do?” 11 And he answered them, “Whoever has two tunics is to share with him who has none, and whoever has food is to do likewise.” 12 Tax collectors also came to be baptized and said to him, “Teacher, what shall we do?” 13 And he said to them, “Collect no more than you are authorized to do.” 14 Soldiers also asked him, “And we, what shall we do?” And he said to them, “Do not extort money from anyone by threats or by false accusation, and be content with your wages.”
(Luk 3:15-16 ESV) 15 As the people were in expectation, and all were questioning in their hearts concerning John, whether he might be the Christ [Messiah], 16 John answered them all, saying, “I baptize you with water, but he who is mightier than I is coming, the strap of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.”
In short, “repent” incorporates the first four of the Five Steps and much more. Yes, it’s more important than “be baptized.”
Joel on Repentance
It was common for Jewish rabbis to quote a portion of an Old Testament text, assuming that his audience would be familiar with the context. That doesn’t work with most modern Christians. And so we should take the time to better understand the passage. In Joel Peter quote follows —
(Joe 2:12-13 ESV) 12 “Yet even now,” declares the LORD, “return to me with all your heart, with fasting, with weeping, and with mourning; 13 and rend your hearts and not your garments.” Return to the LORD your God, for he is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love; and he relents over disaster.”
It’s a plea to repent. Later in the chapter, Joel urges his readers to “call on the name of the Lord.” We can’t separate the two. Calling on the name of the Lord assumes repentance. Indeed, in context, it’s to submit to the changes YHWH is bringing about.
The distance from Ezekiel can be recognized in that Joel never once describes any guilt from which Jerusalem is to turn away. While the Deuteronomistic historian lamented primarily apostasy from the Mosaic Torah and demanded a turning towards it, for Joel return is necessary because cultic, pious self-sufficiency has caused the prophetic word of the Day of Yahweh, directed against Jerusalem, to go unheard. This calls for a rending of hearts, not of clothes (2:13a). Return essentially means for Joel that one face, on the basis of the prophetic proclamation and with fear and trembling, the completely new acts of God towards Jerusalem. This is his central “kerygma” on the forgotten general theme “Day of Yahweh.”
Hans Walter Wolff, Joel and Amos: A Commentary on the Books of the Prophets Joel and Amos (Hermeneia; ed. S. Dean McBride Jr.; trans. Waldemar Janzen, S. Dean McBride Jr., and Charles A. Muenchow; Accordance electronic ed. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1977), 13.
In other words, “repent,” in the context of Joel’s message, means to leave self-sufficiency and to instead rely on the Lord. Sounds very much like “faith” — from Abraham to the Second Coming, it’s about yielding self to the will of God.
The Name of the Lord
Notice also this parallel —
(Act 2:21 ESV) 21 “‘And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.'”
(Act 2:36 ESV) 36 Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.”
(Act 2:38 ESV) 38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
Peter quotes Joel’s prophecy that everyone who calls upon the “name of the Lord” will be saved. He then identifies Jesus as “Lord.” He then urges his listeners to be baptized “in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.” “Saved” parallels” forgiveness of your sins.”
In short, baptism is when believers call on the name of the Lord! (Compare Acts 22:16 ESV: “And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.”) And so, according to Joel, the essential element is calling on the name of the Lord.
Sounds a lot like —
(1Pe 3:21 ESV) 21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ … .
So Peter kept preaching the same thing after Pentecost. Baptism is not so much about the water as responding to Joel’s plea to call on the name of the Lord.
Conclusions
In our preaching, we badly over-emphasize baptism — making it nearly the fourth member of the Trinity — and badly under-emphasize repentance — treating it as a call to be nice. That turns Acts 2:38 on its head and inside-out.
Moreover, if we read Acts 2:38 in context, we see that Peter is doing midrash (commentary) on Joel 2:28-32, and Joel insists that salvation comes to all who call on the name of the Lord. Peter reveals that the “Lord” is Jesus. And so, calling on the name of Jesus in repentance (as above defined) is the heart and core of the sermon, and Acts 2:38. Joel says nothing of baptism.
“Repentance” is a word that encompasses far more than “change to become a good person.” In requires faith in Jesus. How can you submit to someone you don’t believe in, or aren’t faithful to, or don’t trust?
Therefore, there is no inconsistency between Acts 2:38 and Rom 10:9-11:
(Rom 10:9-13 ESV) 9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. 11 For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. 13 For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
Notice that in this seminal passage, Paul also quotes Joel 2:32. Confessing that “Jesus is Lord” is the same thought as being baptized in the name of Jesus in response to a promise to save all who “call on the name of the Lord.” To “believe” (have faith) includes “repent.” “Repent” in Acts 2:38 includes faith.
The Five Steps of Salvation theory errs in adding together those things that are really the same (albeit viewed from different perspectives). This is a problem because we haven’t done a careful job of understanding and teaching what the steps each mean.
The only distinction between the two passages is baptism. Paul says nothing about it in his very detailed, “step by step” presentation of how one becomes saved. We should be leery of trying to be smarter than Paul. It’s obviously quite permissible — even apostolic — to preach salvation without mentioning baptism in the same breath. Paul did. So did Jesus. So did John. It’s wrong to freak out and cite 50 proof texts anytime someone speaks as the apostles did.
On the other hand, obviously, Paul was not against baptism. He taught and practiced baptism. I have no doubt but that he insisted that every single convert be baptized for forgiveness. But plainly enough, Paul elevates faith far above baptism, so much so that he can explain how people are saved in detail repeatedly speaking of faith in Jesus as sufficient and not mentioning baptism.
(And, no, I’m not teaching Southern Baptist baptism theology. Baptism is designed by God to be the moment when we call on the Lord and when we are saved. God expects baptism of every single believer. But grace will cover baptismal error, because God has promised to save all who call on the name of Jesus in repentance. And God keeps his promises.)
Jay said, “In short, baptism is when believers call on the name of the Lord!”
The people didn’t have the book of Acts written at that time. They had the Hebrew Scriptures from which “call on the name of the LORD” is referenced from.
Genesis 4:26 To Seth also a son was born, and he called his name Enosh. At that time people began to call upon the name of the LORD.
The meaning of the name Enosh means frail, mortal man. Enosh realized his frailty and mortality, and the vanity of human life without God. So, he began to call on the name of Jehovah, the Hebrew word for Lord.
The name Jehovah means I am that I am. Jehovah is the eternal God, the only One who is. Enosh, this frail mortal man realized he needed the eternal God.
Throughout thousands of years people have cried out from the depths of their being to God, to draw near to, to cry out to, and to have a relationship with the omnipotent One. Calling on the Lord began with the earliest generations of mankind recorded in the Bible that comes from the deepest part within man.
Here are references of how people “Call on the name of the LORD” that come from the very same Hebrew Scriptures Joel 2:32 comes from.
Genesis 4:26 To Seth also a son was born, and he called his name Enosh. At that time people began to call upon the name of the LORD.
Genesis 12:8 Then he went from there to the mountain east of Bethel. He put up his tent, with Bethel on the west and Ai on the east. There he built an altar to the Lord and called upon the name of the Lord.
Genesis 26:25 So Isaac built an altar there. And he called upon the name of the Lord. He put up his tent there. And there Isaac’s servants dug a well.
Psalm 86:5 For You, Lord, are good, and ready to forgive, and abundant in mercy to all those who call upon You.
Psalm 116:3-6 The pains of death surrounded me, And the pangs of Sheol laid hold of me; I found trouble and sorrow. Then I called upon the name of the LORD: O LORD, I implore You, deliver my soul! Gracious is the LORD, and righteous; Yes, our God is merciful. The LORD preserves the simple; I was brought low, and He saved me.
To call on the name of the Lord does not mean baptism neither in Hebrew or Greek.
Both the Hebrew and Greek words for “call” means “to call, cry, to utter aloud, call out, call upon, or call upon someone for aid”. In both the Hebrew and Greek it is to call a person by saying their name.
Romans 10:12-13 This includes everyone, because there is no difference between Jews and Gentiles; God is the same Lord of all and richly blesses all who call to Him. As the Scripture says, “Everyone who calls out to the Lord for help will be saved.”
Acts 7:59 And they stoned Stephen as he called upon the Lord and said, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!
Repentance is a turning toward the Lord that is distinct from the presence or lack of it of sin in one’s life. Cornelius apparently had little sin to turn away from. The same would be true of a ten year old child who is baptized into Christ. But for many folks the consequences of repentance do include a change in one’s life that results from turning away from sin and turning towards good works. We know from Luke 3:8 that we are expected to produce fruits that are worthy of repentance. While Cornelius certainly still needed the Gospel of Christ it is significant that his good works and charity ascended as a memorial for him before God and obtained for him an apostolic presentation of the Gospel
Grace wrote,
Yes, but the Jews in Jerusalem at Pentecost also had the inspired words of Peter. They cannot be erased by proof texting. And God’s revelation did not end with Malachi. All the verses matter. We don’t get to pick and choose. And the verses that come after Pentecost just reinforce what Peter said at the institution of the Christian age.
Note carefully that I said “when” not “how.” Baptism is something one receives. Calling on the name of the Lord is something one does. They are not the same thing, but they are tightly associated by the passages I quoted.
The lesson just posted supports neither the traditional Church of Christ nor the traditional Southern Baptist point of view. Hopefully, it encourages the readers to think outside the old false dichotomy and be open to other possibilities.
What in the text says that the people were to have a different concept of “calling on the name of the Lord” than what God had given from the beginning? God’s salvation is from the beginning of the foundations of the earth since He first created man.
To call on the name of the Lord does not mean baptism neither in Hebrew or Greek.
Both the Hebrew and Greek words for “call” means “to call, cry, to utter aloud, call out, call upon, or call upon someone for aid”. In both the Hebrew and Greek it is to call a person by saying their name.
Romans 10:12-13 This includes everyone, because there is no difference between Jews and Gentiles; God is the same Lord of all and richly blesses all who call to Him. As the Scripture says, “Everyone who calls out to the Lord for help will be saved.”
Interesting Jay. I think you clairfied better than I could ever the connection to repentance and faith. I even agree that in a sense when one is baptized they are making an appeal to God. And, I can’t imagine a true believer in Jesus refusing baptism, IF THEY HAVE BEEN TAUGHT THEY SHOULD.
We immerse a lot of people at our church. Not many weeks pass that someone is not baptized. And, I believe that almost all of those people have faith in Jesus. I also believe most all of them are already justified when they step into the water. I am thrilled and applaud loudly each time someone is immersed witout regard to what they have been or have not been taught. The bottom line is God saves sinners and I don’t think he nees any assistance.
When I was 15 years old I had been convicted for weeks. I knew that I was lost, that I was a sinner. One day my cousin’s husband said to me “Sit down there Royce, I have something to talk to you about”. He proceeded to tell me the good news about what Jesus had done for me. I believed what he told me and with all my heart. The next day I went to church at Grassy Branch Baptist Church and preacher Jay Blankenship preached a message that was seemingly directed to only me. At the first note of the invitation I walked the long walk from the rear of the building and in front of perhaps 300 or so people I declared my faith in Jesus. Somehow I knew I needed to be baptized. But the pastor told me there would be a baptism on the North Fork River a few weeks from then and that I should be there. (I think it was Easter Sunday a.m.) I was baptized and not once from age 15 to now age 69 1/2 have I ever doubted my salvation. I didn’t know any church of Christ folks so during those weeks from my confession of Christ as Saviour I told friends the good news and one of them was baptized the same day I was.
My mother came to faith in Christ at a Presbyterian Bible School when she was 8 years old. She had a robust prayer life with regular answers to prayer and joy in her heart. She loved Jesus just as her mother and father did. She told me when she was past 80 that “It made me so mad, they made me wait ’til I was 12 before they would let me be baptized”. Never, not even close, have I ever met a more godly, holy, soul winning women than my mother. Do I believe she was lost from age 8 to 12? Not in a million years.
[repeated argument deleted]
Ray, it was Jesus who instituted the Lord’s Supper. He said of the bread “…this is my body” and of the wine “this is my blood..” not one of us believes that we are to take that literally. We know it is symbolic. We eat a cracker and remember the Lord’s body. In baptism the old man symbolically dies. The reason I know is that Paul said in Romans 6 ” now consider your selves dead” if the old man was literally dead there would be no reason to say that nor to warn about yielding to unrighteousness. Just so being baptized “into Christ is just the same as being baptized into his name. The Lord’s Supper and water baptism are twin symbols that are not the reality but point to the reality who is Christ. Both are demonstrations of the gospel, the death and resurrection of Jesus. Jesus said to eat the supper. I eat it. Jesus said to baptize. I do it and was myself baptized.
That’s fair and reasonable.
Ray,
The Greek is more subtle that the English shows.
38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
“Repent” is plural. “Ya’ll repent” in my native tongue. “Be baptized” is singular. It’s singular because it’s subject is “every one of you.” “One” is singular, too, of course. “Repent” does not have a stated subject. It hangs on the implied subject “you” (Or better yet, “you all”). We thus should punctuate so that “repent and be baptized” don’t sound like they’re joined by a conjunction in parallel.
38 And Peter said to them, “[You all] Repent[,] and let every one of you [singular] be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your [singular] sins, and you [all] will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
The middle phrase is parenthetical. And that is a subordinate form of expression. It’s still true, of course, but it’s phrased to be less emphatic than the “repent” and the “gift of the Holy Spirit.”
(We had a robust discussion about the Greek grammar of Acts 2:38 here a few years ago. I learned a lot from my opponent.)
[I’ll not repeat mine either.]
I just edited my comment to Ray. It’s late. I’m making too many mistakes. I’m going to bed. Happy New Year!
I want to speak again to commend Jay for letting me speak even repetitiously! I suspect we are agreed that what the apostles teach is to be obeyed! And surely we all realize that the ones (3,000 obeyed–we don’t know how many heard) who heard Peter’s exhortations did NOT have ready access to the Scriptures. Scrolls were precious, not affordable for most people, and only available at synagogues usually. So those who heard the apostles’ sermons (Acts 2) had only whatever they could remember of Jewish teachings to compare with what they heard. No Bibles available. No tablet computer Bibles. With many OTHER WORDS which Luke doesn’t record, Peter (and the other apostles) exhorted the hearers to SAVE THEMSELVES by obeying the gospel. And 3,000 did that day with another 2,000 the next day. And the church began! God brought the crowd there to hear the gospel, and the apostles did the rest.
I think it important to point out that the Spirit was not said to select the 3,000 and reject any others. The gift of the Spirit followed obeying the gospel of JESUS, turning to JESUS. It was all about JESUS and HIS offer of eternal life to those who would repent and be baptized. And yes, being baptized was just the first step in following Jesus. But it WAS the FIRST step. (I speak of the act of accepting baptism as first even though it was preceded by the internal change of repenting to make Him Lord, which wasn’t external as is baptism). Luke doesn’t say that even one of the 3,000 questioned the necessity of being baptized, as so many people nowadays do. The apostles said REPENT AND BE BAPTIZED and they did so. If we spoke as the apostles did (and many are doing so today) then many WOULD be baptized and thereby brought INTO CHRIST (Galatians 3:27). I promise that no one is brought into Christ in some other than the apostolic way, regardless of how smooth is the speech of the false teachers.
I didn’t realize how late in the day it was already! I applaud Jay for being able to discipline himself to get the rest humans need every day!!! I’ll stay up long enough to point out that the “be baptized” is passive because it is done TO the convert whereas “repent” is done BY the convert. Of course they are handled differently in the language. But they are still joined by “and.” And BOTH are said to be necessary for the remission of sins and to receive the gift of the Spirit. And the apparent (obvious, can’t be denied) fact that in every case baptism immediately followed upon discerned faith, which is totally different from the practice of those who believe baptism really isn’t important since sin is washed away somehow by simply believing in Jesus (and turning to Him, but Al Maxey omits the repentance which Jay and I realize is essential, and the Baptist position is that salvation is by FAITH ALONE (which is Al Maxey’s position also if I’m understanding him correctly). We do NOT believe INTO CHRIST. We do not repent INTO CHRIST. We are BAPTIZED INTO CHRIST (Galatians 3:27). Or was Paul mistaken? Jesus says we who tell others about Jesus are to baptize those who believe. He didn’t say when to baptize except that it was to follow the person believing in Him as Lord and wanting to accept His offer of salvation. But the apostles practiced and taught baptism IMMEDIATELY upon belief.
“And so you’re suggesting that your verses overrule the ones I cited?”
Jay’s favorite come back when he can’t explain the “seemingly” difference in two verses, when they do not contradict , they are just incomplete statements .
Grace wrote in the Contact section,
Or you could just answer my questions.
My answer is posted publicly for all to see.
What I see here is an attempt to clarify what is most important in regards to salvation…faith…repentance…baptism, etc.
Well, Jesus is most important. HE is the WAY, the TRUTH and the LIGHT. HE is the DOOR. No man can come to the Father, but through Jesus. He is the reason that salvation can be achieved.
Now beyond that we come to the responses of man to Christ.
Faith…Repentance…Baptism
Mark 16:16 argues for ‘Faith and Baptism”
Acts 2:38 argues for “Repentance and Baptism”
Even while the only consistent word is baptism, we must not disclude the fact that baptism is linked with other things…Faith and Repentance and they are done on equal basis.
Mark 16:16 “Believe and be baptized for salvation”
This is like saying “PB and J makes a PB&J sandwich”, but of course you need bread too, but since PB and J are argued for in the making of the PB&J sandwich, to leave one out will give you something less than the PB&J sandwich. Also the PB, is not more important than the J, since they are both vital in the making of the PB&J sandwich.
Until the scripture points to one (faith, repentance, baptism) as being the most important, like love is done in I Cor.13 over hope and faith, they are all vital in the plan. To disclude one or place one over another is to destroy the relationship of why they are there in the first place, which is our reaction to Jesus. Note: In Acts 2:38 Peter never says, “believe, repent and be baptized”, but this doesn’t mean that Peter is arguing for no faith, but Peter is arguing for repentance and baptism in the faith that is showing itself.
Jay, I’ve recently read “Believer’s Baptism, Sign Of The New Covenant In Christ.” It’s an excellent book with various authors contributing. Are you familiar with this book? The most interesting contribution to me was the chapter submitted by Robert H. Stein, “Baptism in Luke-Acts.” Stein is a senior professor of New Testament Interpretation at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
His chapter closely mirrors your take on the subject. I was a bit surprised too, as he teaches at a Southern Baptist Seminary, but it reads like someone who teaches from a COC background.
I broke my own rule about not reading Grace’s posts due to Jay’s post about her “sending comments to other people” that are on the blog.
Nothing new here, of course. Same old repetitive, useless diatribe and posting style. Good luck getting an answer to your simple questions, Jay.
Nevertheless, the discussion (or rather lack thereof) would be quite interesting.
Calling on the name of the Lord.
Acts 2:21 reads, “Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
Grace contends that the passage means, “Both the Hebrew and Greek words for “call” means “to call, cry, to utter aloud, call out, call upon, or call upon someone for aid”. In both the Hebrew and Greek it is to call a person by saying their name.”
It’s not that simple. Notice the words of our Lord as recorded by Matthew, “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.”
Clearly, whatever “calling on the name of the Lord” is, the act involves more than a verbal plea. Repentance is involved, as is obedience. Jay, I think you are exactly correct WRT Acts 22:16 – “And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.”
Ananias clearly ties calling on His name with baptism. No verbal plea is anywhere indicated in the context. In fact, Paul had come to a faith in christ days earlier. If “calling on the name of the Lord” merely equated to a verbal plea or faith, Paul’s “calling” would have happened on the road to Damascus when, upon realizing that he was conversing with Jesus, Paul asks, “What shall I do Lord?”
Some of my post didn’t appear. I’ve also found an article on the web by Stein titled “Baptism and Becoming a Christian in the New Testament.” Both are excellent reads, and like your writings, help make sense of everything. May God bless you and Happy New Year!
Chris,
I have that book on Logos. I think Jay has mentioned it, or maybe that was John Mark Hicks…
Jay, I know you question the veracity of Mark 16:16 and yet what is it that Peter does in Acts when the people ask about what to do to be saved? Peter does exactly what is said or not said in Mark 16:16. This shows that Peter understands Mark 16:16 as also Phillip. So while Mark 16:16 might have been added later, it doesn’t mean that it wasn’t taught by Jesus and added later because it was true and it does show up in some documents, as opposed to none.
You state, “I’ve already shown in a comment last night that the “Repent and be baptized” does not produce a parallel in the Greek grammatically. Obviously, Peter insists that his audience do both, but the sermon is about repentance and the Spirit, not baptism.”
But the text says, “repent and be baptized”, so it is showing at least a flow of thought and command in response to the question posed by the people who ask, “What must we do to be saved.” So to argue that the sermon is about repentance and the Spirit and miss that baptism is right there in between those two concepts is strange and unnerving.
This is rewriting the scripture at this point to better reflect what we wish to focus on.
This is like me saying, “Peanut butter and Jelly makes a sandwich that you can eat” and then you saying, “Well, the peanut butter and jelly are not equal concepts and the point of the eating that will happen is about the peanut butter and the sandwich.” HUH? Did you miss the Jelly part? Without both the Peanut butter and THE JELLY you don’t have the PB&J sandwich. Grammer, order and common sense dictates this reality. And if you left out the Peanut Butter you would have the same problem of not having a PB&J sandwich.
In regards to the question of salvation by the people Peter includes both repentance and baptism.
But ironically Peter did not mention faith at any point, so if baptism which is mentioned, is not on equal footing with repentance, then faith must be really a third stringer or not even on the map in regards to salvation, except that Mark 16:16 which you disallow includes both faith and baptism. If your argument is true in regards to baptism, then Peter obviously doesn’t believe in faith here having any part in salvation.
Either you must argue that repentance and baptism is part of the salvation that they are asking about and faith is implied
or
just repentance is only involved in salvation without baptism (which is placed conspicously by Peter alongside repentance and after it in order) and/or faith (which is not mentioned).
To argue against baptism in regards to salvation as Peter understands it, even though Peter mentions baptism in relation to it, is to argue against faith in regards to salvation as Peter understands it as well, which was not mentioned at all in relation to it.
I can follow Peter’s direct statement and logic (who is speaking by the direct power of the HS), but I am having a hard time following yours in regards to Peter’s statement to the question of salvation, with or without Mark 16:16.
Dwight,
I’m going to respond to your comment in detail. Please take the time to read my responses carefully.
Me and the overwhelming majority of Christian scholars. Don’t minimize the objective reality. You cannot persuade informed students with this argument.
Your argument was based on the GRAMMAR of Mark 16:16. You argued that the parallel “repent and is baptized” suggests that the two are of equal weight in the eyes of God. The parallel is almost certainly not inspired and so irrelevant to this discussion.
The fact that the apostles routinely baptized their converts is not inconsistent with what I’ve been teaching. I teach that God intends that believers be baptized into remission of sins. This is taken from the same verses you refer to. We agree to that extent. Therefore, the history of Acts supports what I teach. Remember your point: that repentance and baptism are equal in God’s eyes — and you’ve said nothing to demonstrate that point so far.
You are ignoring everything I said about the Greek of Acts 2:38. I’ve already answered this argument in my earlier comment, and you’ve chosen to ignore my answer.
You are arguing from the English translation. I argued from the apostolic, inspired Greek. You’re completely ignoring what I said. Please take the time to read my earlier comment before we continue this part of this discussion. If there is a useful parallel, it will be found in the Greek Luke wrote, not in the English. And I’m not the one re-writing the text. You’re the one taking an imprecise translation and seeking to overrule the inspired Greek.
Please imagine my frustration: THE MAIN POST ARGUES THAT “REPENT” IN ACTS 2:38 IS INCLUSIVE OF FAITH. And you entirely ignore the post. I question whether you’ve read it. Please read the post carefully before continuing this line of discussion.
Again, you entirely ignore the entire post. Please be courteous enough to read the post before you respond to it.
I apologize, but I have no idea what point you are making here. First, I’ve NOT TAKEN THE BAPTIST POSITION. I’ve not “argue[d] against baptism.” I think God intends that believers be baptized into the remission of sins. I just also believe that grace will cover an error in baptismal theology or practice. But it will be an error and therefore not to be condoned or encouraged.
Please understand that there are more possibilities than just the COC and SBC positions on baptism. I’m not in either camp. I am in favor of baptism as the very moment when forgiveness occurs and the Spirit is received. But God has promised to save all with faith, and so he is not limited by our mistakes in baptism. That does not make the Baptists right. They are mistaken. But grace is all about covering mistakes.
Please read my responses carefully and do not react instinctively as though I were arguing the SBC position. I am not, as should be obvious from how very unhappy with me Grace is. Read the main post regarding the meaning of “repent” in Acts 2:38 — carefully — so that you understand that I’ve argued that “repent” in context includes “believe that Jesus is the Messiah.” And read my earlier comment regarding the Greek of Acts 2:38 — which is about the inspired words. The translation is not the inspired words but a translation of the inspired words. If you want to find a parallel, it has to be in the Greek or else it’s merely a translation error — and proves nothing. Here’s the link: /2014/12/baptism-repent-in-acts-238/#comment-112965.
Was the baptism of John actual repentance? Is that your position?
Jay, my point is that you can include faith in repentance, but the fact that Peter doesn’t say faith, should argue that turning to God is more important than faith, after all people can turn in mind just like they can be baptized without faith, so why should turning have a place over another action.
You have included faith without it being represented by Peter in the statement in regards to salvation and yet not made baptism a part of salvation that is mentioned by Peter in regards to their question of what must they do to be saved, which is the point of Peter’s answer. You can say, “I’ve argued that “repent” in context includes “believe that Jesus is the Messiah.””, but the text itself doesn’t bear the weight of this conclusion. You would have to pull this context from somewhere else as repentance should have faith behind it, but it might not. I can turn my mind towards a corporation and work there and get paid, even though I do not have faith in it.
Mark 1:15 “Repent and believe the good news.” which makes it clear that faith is not tied up in belief, but is separate, they are separate actions, and here repent is even place before belief, unless the grammar of course is wrong.
I assume Peter answered the question of “what must we do be saved”, with the appropriate answer of “repent and be baptized.” Grammar should not nullify any part of the answer to the question. They were not worried about the gift of the Holy Spirit, unless that gift was salvation, which is what they asked about. We should not separate the answer from the question and then dissect the answer as it all applied to the question.
I actually have read on the position of the grammar point from: http://carm.org/baptism-and-acts-238
and yet this article misses the point as it pulls in arguments that they would not have understood at the time Peter spoke to them as Peter didn’t say, “Baptism, then, is the outward identification with being a Christian for those who have already repented ”
All Peter said was “Repent and be baptized”, as a directive to the question of what must they do to be saved. They didn’t understand all of the ramifications that would be given later, that baptism was a burial into Christ. They were commanded to do something and they did it and they assumed that their response in their repentance and baptism did what they wanted.
This has the people asking “what must we do to be saved?” and Peter saying, “Well repent and be baptized because baptism, although not saving like the repentance, shows that you are saved.”
You says, “limited by our mistakes in baptism.” Mistakes in baptism? I have never heard of such a thing and even the scriptures never point to anything like this. There might be mistakes in our understanding, but baptism is immersion or immersed and you cannot do it wrong. You might do it for the wrong reasons, though.
Royce, I’m sorry I don’t have a position exactly. I guess I don’t think that way. Sure John’s baptism was repentance and I would suppose a commitment to seek the Messiah and accept him once found. I think John preached ( in effect) for people to call on the name of the Lord; to be ready for the Messiah.
What the difference between turning to God and faith? How can I have faith and not turn to God? How can I turn to God and not have faith? I fail to see the distinction you are trying to make. Are you saying that faith is not only not sufficient but unnecessary? Surely not!
I am full convinced that we must commit to a life of faithfulness to Jesus to be saved. I do not teach against repentance! Just that in some cases, “repent” is more about faith that Jesus is Messiah than leaving behind a sinful lifestyle. But the fact that “repent” in Acts 2:38 is not a reference to leaving behind a sinful lifestyle does not mean that we need not do that. OF COURSE we must. But that’s just not the point Peter was making in Acts 2:38. The point is made plainly enough in plenty of other places.
I’m not going to repeat the arguments made in the main post. Merely asserting that you disagree does not advance your position. I have no idea what it would mean to “repent toward a corporation.” Apples and oranges. You have to work through the meaning of “repent” as it’s used in context — the entire sermon in Acts 2 as well as the sermons that follow. “Repent” does not inherently mean “repent of sin.” Obviously, that is one use of the word, but in the LXX, the word is almost always used of God changing his mind — and God does not repent of sin. Rather, he relents from a previously intended course of action. What course of action did Peter ask his audience to relent from? Well, their continued denial of Jesus as Messiah.
As I said in the original post, “repent” and “believe” are overlapping terms from two different perspectives — and the meaning shifts depending on context. Sometimes “repent” refers specifically to a given sin. Sometimes to a sinful lifestyle. Sometimes to repenting from unbelief. Context matters.
I take “repent and believe” to be a classic Hebraic parallel — that is, saying the same thing twice from two different perspectives as a matter of emphasis. Among Jews especially, saying “X and Y” often means that X and Y almost the same thing. The Psalms are built on exactly this concept, and it’s very common among NT writers.
N. T. Wright famously comments on this verse:
N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, Christian Origins and the Question of God (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1996), 250–251.
Notice that “repent” in Josephus doesn’t mean “repent of a sinful lifestyle.” It means “give up your rebellion.” “Faith” means “become faithful.” These are two sides of the same coin. Just so, John was calling on his listeners to repent in order to believe — because you have to give up the old in order to take on the new.
In Acts 2:38, the old is a lack of faith that Jesus is Messiah. In Acts 8, the old is Simon Magus’ misunderstanding of the Spirit and desire to make money off the Spirit.
Now, I’ve not AT ALL rejected the necessity of repentance from sin. I just point out that sometimes “repent” is referring to something else. The term is not BY DEFINITION a reference to giving up sin.
Thayer’s defines the Greek as —
BDAG, the most respected NT Greek lexicon out, translates,
Again, no specific reference to sin, although sin certainly can be in mind – in context. But we are not justified in asserting “from sin” regardless of context.
The first half of Peter’s sermon was about the Holy Spirit being outpoured as the prophets had promised — as a sign of the coming of the Kingdom. Of course, the Spirit brings salvation. Of course. But the Spirit himself was the subject of the sermon. WHY, OH WHY, DO WE INSIST ON INTERPRETING ACTS 2:38 WITHOUT READING THE SERMON THAT IT CONCLUDES? This is a chronic error among the Churches of Christ (and not just us). We IGNORE the sermon and read Acts 2:38 as though it were a gift from God to defeat the Baptists. But it’s spoken by Peter at a critical moment in church history — the coming of the Kingdom and the outpouring of the Spirit.
(Act 2:16-21 ESV) 16 But this is what was uttered through the prophet Joel: 17 “‘And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams; 18 even on my male servants and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy. 19 And I will show wonders in the heavens above and signs on the earth below, blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke; 20 the sun shall be turned to darkness and the moon to blood, before the day of the Lord comes, the great and magnificent day. 21 And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.’
(Act 2:33 ESV) 33 Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing.
Peter is not just explaining the miracle of tongues. This is the moment when the Messiah is enthroned, the Kingdom is established, and the Spirit outpoured! This is the turning point in world history, the dawning of a new age!
The presence of the Spirit shows that this is true, and therefore that Jesus is Messiah. They were struck to the heart because they’d crucified the Messiah! What to do? What to do?
Repent! From what? Lust? Cheating on taxes? No, from the sin they were just charged with — denial of the Messiahship of Jesus!! They’d missed the most important moment in Israel’s history, committing an unspeakable crime. Repent!! How? By accepting that Jesus is LORD — and so calling on his name — relying on him for forgiveness.
And because of God’s unspeakable grace, made possible through Jesus, forgiveness will come, but not just forgiveness — entry into the Kingdom marked by receipt of the same Spirit who has been outpoured. By accepting Jesus as Messiah (the major theme of the sermon), the Spirit will be provided. Of course, the Spirit can only be poured into those who’ve been cleansed from sin.
This will all be accomplished at the moment of baptism — but a baptism better than John’s. Not just for repentance and forgiveness, but for receipt of the Spirit that marks entry into the Kingdom in fulfillment of Joel’s promises.
The story matters. And the story isn’t: leave your life of sin and be baptized to be forgiven. It’s: You’ve sinned by rejecting God’s Messiah. Repent by believing Jesus is Messiah. Call on the name of Jesus, and he’ll respond in grace with forgiveness and the Spirit — all at the moment of a new, better baptism.
Again, I’m not arguing the Baptist position. The Baptists use a similar argument but to a very different conclusion. I agree that they err in so doing. I am not them.
Again, I’m not defending the Baptist understanding. Please direct anti-Baptist arguments to a Baptist.
Or you might not be entirely immersed. Or you might pour rather than immerse. Or you might say the wrong words. There are lots of ways to baptize imperfectly.
Chris,
Thanks for the reference to Stein’s article. It can be downloaded at http://www.sbts.edu/resources/journal-of-theology/sbjt-21-spring-1998/baptism-and-becoming-a-christian-in-the-new-testament/ and is a good read. I particularly enjoyed his analogy to the wedding ring at the end of the article.
It’s plain from this, and many other articles coming out of Southern Baptist academia, that their scholars are questioning their traditional baptism teaching — at least those scholars who aren’t pushing toward traditional Calvinism.
Royce,
I thought you may have asked this question of me because I did not see anyone else using John’s teachings as examples.
“Was the baptism of John actual repentance? Is that your position?”
So to that question I will offer these as prof.
(Mat 3:2 ESV) “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”
(Mat 3:8 ESV) Bear fruit in keeping with repentance.
(Mat 3:11 ESV) “I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.
(Mar 1:4 ESV) John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.
(Luk 3:3 ESV) And he went into all the region around the Jordan, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.
(Luk 3:8 ESV) Bear fruits in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham.
(Act 13:24 ESV) Before his coming, John had proclaimed a baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel.
(Act 19:4 ESV) And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.”
Do you believe that he did not teach repentance? Or was the repentance that he was requiring not available for him to offer? Would their repentance because of his teachings have no value?
Larry, Johns baptism could not repent for people, only humans can repent. They were baptized “for” repentance and “for” forgiveness of sins. That is they were baptized because they had repented and when John baptized them he called them to live as they professed. It’s like me saying ” I’m having a party for my wife’s birthday” The party does not make her a year older, the party celebrates and commorates her birthday. The party is “for” her birthday. If I try to do something “for” God’s glory my act does not cause God to be glorious.
Before Peter’s address, the crowd(gathered that day) irrationally cried for His blood during Christ’s Crucifixion. They even started jeering by jesting that the disciples were drunk when the Spirit came. But after that inauguratory sermon, their calloused hearts were cut asunder! No longer hard but soft. The 2,000 turned from their disloyalty and hypocritical devoutness and became devoted followers of the Messiah!.
Granting repentance to the Gentiles I don’t think specifically relate to Cornelius but to his household and the Gentiles at large. He did not need to repent of sin or from being disloyal(since you can’t betray someone you don’t know).
Then again, how can God Grant repentance? If this doesn’t prove Calvinism then what do we make of this?
Royce,
I really think you have missed the point, I’ll try to offer a better explanation. After your comment.
“Larry, Johns baptism could not repent for people, only humans can repent. They were baptized “for” repentance and “for” forgiveness of sins. That is they were baptized because they had repented and when John baptized them he called them to live as they professed. It’s like me saying ” I’m having a party for my wife’s birthday” The party does not make her a year older, the party celebrates and commorates her birthday. The party is “for” her birthday. If I try to do something “for” God’s glory my act does not cause God to be glorious.”
I was attempting to show how in John”s baptism, repentance and baptism were connected as a finished product. If an individual repented as John was teaching and refused baptism he was rejecting salvation. I know this will be a point of disagreement that John’s baptism offered salvation but notice, by bearing fruit of repentance and being baptized they would flee from the wrath to come. That sounds like an escape to safety from something that they feared.
Mat 3:7-8 ESV But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? (8) Bear fruit in keeping with repentance.
Luk 3:7-8 ESV He said therefore to the crowds that came out to be baptized by him, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? (8) Bear fruits in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham.
Jesus a short while later helped to identify what is understood by the term brood of vipers.
Mat 23:33 ESV You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?
The point here is that if individuals who brought fruit of repentance as they repented and were baptized by John they received an escape from the “wrath to come”. What was this “wrath to come”? I really have not seen that identified but, I would seriously doubt that anyone who had submitted to John’s baptism was in the crowd that was involved with the crucifixion. Further than that I just don’t know, because I believe that all those who were baptized by John who were there on the Day of Pentecost participated in the new baptism into Jesus.
Now let’s see how Jesus spoke of the operations of John. Where did Jesus place priority?
Mat 21:24-26 ESV Jesus answered them, “I also will ask you one question, and if you tell me the answer, then I also will tell you by what authority I do these things. (25) The baptism of John, from where did it come? From heaven or from man?” And they discussed it among themselves, saying, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will say to us, ‘Why then did you not believe him?’ (26) But if we say, ‘From man,’ we are afraid of the crowd, for they all hold that John was a prophet.”
Mar 11:29-32 ESV Jesus said to them, “I will ask you one question; answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I do these things. (30) Was the baptism of John from heaven or from man? Answer me.” (31) And they discussed it with one another, saying, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will say, ‘Why then did you not believe him?’ (32) But shall we say, ‘From man’?”—they were afraid of the people, for they all held that John really was a prophet.
Luk 20:3-6 ESV He answered them, “I also will ask you a question. Now tell me, (4) was the baptism of John from heaven or from man?” (5) And they discussed it with one another, saying, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will say, ‘Why did you not believe him?’ (6) But if we say, ‘From man,’ all the people will stone us to death, for they are convinced that John was a prophet.”
Jesus said not a word regarding their repentance, but he placed all the value on the baptism which was as he implied from heaven. He credited it with so much importance that he declared those who had not been baptized by John as rejecting God’s purpose for their lives.
Luk 7:29-30 ESV (When all the people heard this, and the tax collectors too, they declared God just, having been baptized with the baptism of John, (30) but the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected the purpose of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him.)
Then we notice the following.
Joh 3:22 ESV After this Jesus and his disciples went into the Judean countryside, and he remained there with them and was baptizing.
Joh 3:25-26 ESV Now a discussion arose between some of John’s disciples and a Jew over purification. (26) And they came to John and said to him, “Rabbi, he who was with you across the Jordan, to whom you bore witness—look, he is baptizing, and all are going to him.”
Joh 4:1 ESV Now when Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John
It seems very odd to me that there is no mention of the message that Jesus and his disciples were teaching only that they were baptizing. Was their message the same as John’s? Were they communicating about repentance? If repentance was the priority as you suggest, why was baptism the object discussed? Why wasn’t the communication, that many were repenting? why not the mention of whom they were to following after baptism? Evidently, these were following Jesus, not John and it was a concern of John’s followers.
Jesus also clarified the meaning of rejected as he spoke in these verses.
Act 4:11-13 ESV This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone. (12) And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” (13) Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated, common men, they were astonished. And they recognized that they had been with Jesus.
Mat 21:42 ESV Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures: “‘The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; this was the Lord’s doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes’?
Mar 12:10-11 ESV Have you not read this Scripture: “‘The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; (11) this was the Lord’s doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes’?”
Now for your definition of the birthday party being the equivalent of the baptisms of both John and those of his disciples. Is that really your definition of these baptisms? Can you give us a better picture of how the “party concept” fits the records in scripture?
Jay, you say”As I said in the original post, “repent” and “believe” are overlapping terms from two different perspectives — and the meaning shifts depending on context. Sometimes “repent” refers specifically to a given sin. Sometimes to a sinful lifestyle. Sometimes to repenting from unbelief. Context matters.”
and ”
Thayer’s -to change one’s mind, i. e. to repent (to feel sorry that one has done this or that,
BDAG, the most respected NT Greek lexicon out, translates,1.change one’s mind … 2.feel remorse, repent, be converted …”
You said that repent and belief are overlapping and yet you remark that “you can repent from unbelief”, but can’t you repent from belief or change your mind from believing? If repent means to change one mind, then yes you can and thus repent and unbelief must be overlapping terms as well. Or not?
Repentance might be done out of faith or faith might lead to repentance, but they are not exclusive of each other and if Acts 2:38 shows anything, repentance and baptism are overlapping terms s they are both works directed towards God. Again only repentance and baptism are mentioned here in the answer to the question.
Now I am not arguing against faith, but arguing that while faith is not mentioned by Peter in regards to the question of “What must we do to be saved”, but “repent and baptism” are, then Peters response is pretty clear from what they heard and what they did. They might have had faith, but they were commanded to repent (turning is an action) and be baptized (also an action).
One could argue that since they were convicted that they had faith and that in this faith they had turned, thus excluding the repentance from the command(as it was redundant) and making baptism the only real command given.
I understand that supposedly the grammar of Acts 2:38 suggest that repentance is what a person does and baptism is what is done to a person, except in this context a person who has repented is involved in being baptized. Besides Jesus was buried, right, he did not bury himself, so does that make what He went through any less of a burial of Him? No! Jesus went to the grave and was buried, so a convert will go to baptism and be baptized due to his faith.
Those in Acts 2:38 understood that they must do both things…repent…be baptized in response to the question of “what must we do to be saved.”
The argument you make in this regards is a basic Baptist argument against baptism for salvation. is answered here: https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/77-acts-2-38-not-so-tough
A similar construct is:“All who are departing for San Francisco, approach gate three and each of you must have his ticket available for the agent.”
In the above, one group is being talked about here and that one group must do both things, even while there is a switch between the plural and singular in regards to the people. This doesn’t make the approaching of the gate and the getting of the ticket any less important than the other thing in regards to boarding the plane in that both have to be done. And they must do this out of faith in the announcer. If they have a ticket, but do not go to gate three or they go to gate three without a ticket they will not fly on the plane.