Acts 2:38 and Baptismal Regeneration Refuted

[sparkman]

Acts 2:38 has been used by various individuals who claim that forgiveness of sins is conveyed at the point of baptism rather than at the point of belief.

This view has been taught by various groups but the one I am most familiar with is the Campbellite faction of Church of Christ. I became aware of this teaching about a month ago after a Church of Christ member discussed it with me. Since then I've done a lot of research on their teachings in order to formulate a response to them. I am thinking that others will benefit from sharing this information as I am learning.

Acts 2:38English Standard Version (ESV)[SUP]38 [/SUP]And Peter said to them, [SUP](A)[/SUP]“Repent and [SUP](B)[/SUP]be baptized every one of you [SUP](C)[/SUP]in the name of Jesus Christ [SUP](D)[/SUP]for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive [SUP](E)[/SUP]the gift of the Holy Spirit.

In the COC Campbellite faction view, this verse says that you are not forgiven of your sins until you are baptized by water.

For those of us who believe in salvation by grace through faith alone, the orthodox teaching is that we are saved when we respond to the gospel message and place our faith in Jesus Christ for salvation. Works, including baptism, are a result of our salvation, but they do not contribute to our salvation in any way...they are the fruits of our salvation.

So, how do we resolve the above Scripture, which seems to indicate that baptism is the point where sins are forgiven?

The Greek word that was translated "for" in this Scripture is eis. A legitimate translation of this word is "because of". We are baptized "because of" the remission of sin.


Consider the following Scriptures:

Luke 5:13-14 Luke 5:13-14[SUP]13 [/SUP]And Jesus[SUP][a][/SUP] stretched out his hand and touched him, saying, “I will; be clean.” And immediately the leprosy left him. [SUP]14 [/SUP]And he charged him [SUP](A)[/SUP]to tell no one, but “go and show [SUP](B)[/SUP]yourself to the priest, and [SUP](C)[/SUP]make an offering for your cleansing, as Moses commanded, [SUP](D)[/SUP]for a proof to them.”

Now, the word "for" in "make an offering for your cleansing" is the same word eis as in the phrase "baptized for the remission of sins in Acts 2:38. Was the leper cleansed prior to making the offering, or before it? Verse 13 plainly says that he was cleansed by Jesus before the offering was made. The offering was merely a public acknowledgement of this cleansing.

Baptism is exactly the same. Baptism is a public testimony that our sins have been forgiven when we placed our faith in Christ. We are already forgiven prior to the ceremony, though. Baptism is an important act of obedience, but it comes AFTER salvation, not to OBTAIN salvation. It identifies us with Christ as our Savior, and we are proclaiming our intention to live in newness of life. We are demonstrating our unity with Him through a reenactment of his death, burial, and resurrection in a symbolic way through the waters of baptism. But, baptism does not save us as baptismal regenerationists claim.

 

[oldhermit]

Acts 2:38 has been used by various individuals who claim that forgiveness of sins is conveyed at the point of baptism rather than at the point of belief.

This view has been taught by various groups but the one I am most familiar with is the Campbellite faction of Church of Christ. I became aware of this teaching about a month ago after a Church of Christ member discussed it with me. Since then I've done a lot of research on their teachings in order to formulate a response to them. I am thinking that others will benefit from sharing this information as I am learning.

Acts 2:38English Standard Version (ESV)[SUP]38 [/SUP]And Peter said to them, [SUP](A)[/SUP]“Repent and [SUP](B)[/SUP]be baptized every one of you [SUP](C)[/SUP]in the name of Jesus Christ [SUP](D)[/SUP]for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive [SUP](E)[/SUP]the gift of the Holy Spirit.

In the COC Campbellite faction view, this verse says that you are not forgiven of your sins until you are baptized by water.

For those of us who believe in salvation by grace through faith alone, the orthodox teaching is that we are saved when we respond to the gospel message and place our faith in Jesus Christ for salvation. Works, including baptism, are a result of our salvation, but they do not contribute to our salvation in any way...they are the fruits of our salvation.

So, how do we resolve the above Scripture, which seems to indicate that baptism is the point where sins are forgiven?

The Greek word that was translated "for" in this Scripture is eis. A legitimate translation of this word is "because of". We are baptized "because of" the remission of sin.


Consider the following Scriptures:

Luke 5:13-14 Luke 5:13-14[SUP]13 [/SUP]And Jesus[SUP][a][/SUP] stretched out his hand and touched him, saying, “I will; be clean.” And immediately the leprosy left him. [SUP]14 [/SUP]And he charged him [SUP](A)[/SUP]to tell no one, but “go and show [SUP](B)[/SUP]yourself to the priest, and [SUP](C)[/SUP]make an offering for your cleansing, as Moses commanded, [SUP](D)[/SUP]for a proof to them.”

Now, the word "for" in "make an offering for your cleansing" is the same word eis as in the phrase "baptized for the remission of sins in Acts 2:38. Was the leper cleansed prior to making the offering, or before it? Verse 13 plainly says that he was cleansed by Jesus before the offering was made. The offering was merely a public acknowledgement of this cleansing.

Baptism is exactly the same. Baptism is a public testimony that our sins have been forgiven when we placed our faith in Christ. We are already forgiven prior to the ceremony, though. Baptism is an important act of obedience, but it comes AFTER salvation, not to OBTAIN salvation. It identifies us with Christ as our Savior, and we are proclaiming our intention to live in newness of life. We are demonstrating our unity with Him through a reenactment of his death, burial, and resurrection in a symbolic way through the waters of baptism. But, baptism does not save us as baptismal regenerationists claim.

Your text of Luke 5 offers nothing in support of your contention since the word used there is not εἰς but περὶ which means 'concerning' or 'about' and is often translated as 'for'. εἰς on the other hand always represents forward motion - into, for, toward... If you are going to make a linguistic argument at least learn something about the language.

 

[dcontroversal]

Your text of Luke 5 offers nothing in support of your contention since the word used there is not εἰς but περὶ which means 'concerning' or 'about' and is often translated as 'for'. εἰς on the other hand always represents forward motion - into, for, toward... If you are going to make a linguistic argument at least learn something about the language.

All three Greek texts that I use have εἰς..........so......? And acts is clear...since your sins have been remitted for..be IMMERSED and be identified with Christ is the thought conveyed in my view as well!

 

[oldhermit]

All three Greek texts that I use have εἰς..........so......? And acts is clear...since your sins have been remitted for..be IMMERSED and be identified with Christ is the thought conveyed in my view as well!

Maybe I misunderstood what sparkman was referring to. In verse 14, we see the phrase "offer the sacrifices that Moses commanded for your cleansing," "For your cleansing" is represented by περὶ τοῦ καθαρισμοῦ σου. I thought this was what he was referring to. In the last clause we have καθὼς προσέταξεν Μωϋσῆς, εἰς μαρτύριον αὐτοῖς - "As Moses testified as a testimony to them." Here, εἰς merely modifies the direction of what Moses testified, it was toward those who heard. If he is referring to the last clause, his argument makes absolutely no sense. If sparkman is referring to the previous clause, I am afraid he is just simply incorrect. I am afraid I will have to disagree with you on the Greek structure of Acts 2. That simply is not what it says.

 

[dcontroversal]

Maybe I misunderstood what sparkman was referring to. In verse 14, we see the phrase "offer the sacrifices that Moses commanded for your cleansing," "For your cleansing" is represented by περὶ τοῦ καθαρισμοῦ σου. I thought this was what he was referring to. In the last clause we have καθὼς προσέταξεν Μωϋσῆς, εἰς μαρτύριον αὐτοῖς - "As Moses testified as a testimony to them." Here, εἰς merely modifies the direction of what Moses testified, it was toward those who heard. If he is referring to the last clause, his argument makes absolutely no sense. If sparkman is referring to the previous clause, I am afraid he is just simply incorrect. I am afraid I will have to disagree with you on the Greek structure of Acts 2. That simply is not what it says.

Well that is fine as you know by now you and I are mature enough to disagree without getting pissy about it......You know God's word does not contradict itself and for every one verse taken out of context to teach baptismal regeneration there are 30 in context that teach grace, mercy, no works etc. Baptism is a work of righteousness and is the outward testimony of the inward act of faith just as circumcision was in the O.T. Abraham had faith before he had circumcision....Baptism is an identifier and states to the world we have received the completed work of Jesus and are dead to the old man, buried with Christ and RISEN a new CREATION in Christ Jesus!

 

[oldhermit]

Well that is fine as you know by now you and I are mature enough to disagree without getting pissy about it......

Agreed

You know God's word does not contradict itself

Agreed

Baptism is a work of righteousness and is the outward testimony of the inward act of faith just as circumcision was in the O.T.

You will not be able to find this definition of baptism anywhere in scripture. The only place baptism is ever regarded as a 'work' is in Col.2:12 and there it is called the work of God.

Baptism is an identifier and states to the world we have received the completed work of Jesus and are dead to the old man, buried with Christ and RISEN a new CREATION in Christ Jesus!

Again you will not find scripture defining baptism in this way.

 

[sparkman]

Your text of Luke 5 offers nothing in support of your contention since the word used there is not εἰς but περὶ which means 'concerning' or 'about' and is often translated as 'for'. εἰς on the other hand always represents forward motion - into, for, toward... If you are going to make a linguistic argument at least learn something about the language.

You are correct on the difference of words. It was an inadvertent mistake. I made an assumption from some materials that I should have checked out myself.

However the Luke 5 scripture makes a valid point regardless as it is an example of where something already accomplished (healing) was publicly affirmed by a ceremony (the offering) exactly as baptism is a public affirmation of salvation which has already occurred.

 

[oldhermit]

You are correct on the difference of words. It was an inadvertent mistake. I made an assumption from some materials that I should have checked out myself.

That's ok. I have done the same thing myself.

However the Luke 5 scripture makes a valid point regardless as it is an example of where something already accomplished (healing) was publicly affirmed by a ceremony (the offering) exactly as baptism is a public affirmation of salvation which has already occurred.

That is true of Luke five but, this is not the same language used in Acts 2. In Luke 5, the man is commanded to make an offering as a testimony to the fact that he had been healed which is demonstrated in the use of the word περὶ. In Acts 2, Peter uses an entirely different construction. They were to be baptized into - εἰς - the remission of sin. There is no similarity between these two texts.

 

[posthuman]

there are many examples of Jesus telling people their sins were forgiven in the scripture, and none i'm aware of Him first instructing that they be baptized. it was for their faith that He forgave them -- is that not so?

to me, water baptism is part of discipleship, like shaving your head and wearing a certain robe might indicate someone had become a disciple of some teacher in the East. it does not wash away sin, but it is the answer of a good conscious toward God, the very God who does the actual cleansing and justification of us, for regeneration is a work of God, not of men (as in Colossians 2:12)
baptism does not remit sins; God does.

 

[RedTent]

I think this entire post is silly. Why should we pull scriptures apart, word for word, scriptures that are complete and clear! We learn from Acts 2:38 to repent and be baptized. John the Baptist teaches us about repentance, Christ speaks of it, we then learn and listen to scripture to know what we are asked to do. Baptism is also explained well, it is what we do in cooperation with our Lord and Savior to mark acceptance of all His truths for one way of explaining it. Baptism means baptism. We are told something miraculous happens at the time we do this, and that miracle is the Holy Spirit. We are not to add to what Acts 2:38 says and we are not to take anything away from it. What man says about it and decides it means has nothing to do with finding and living by truth.

 

[posthuman]

i think it's silly to look for a justification to not be baptized with water, or to try to justify the observance of any act as beng the way a human is saved. and that's how these baptism conversations usually go =\

but it's important to understand that Christ is due the glory of our redemption and forgiveness, not a ritual or an obedient act, no matter how righteous the act might be, and also that we should be eager and ready to do any righteous thing, for the sake of His name, and our love for Him in obedience to His commands. my work is in reaction to His love, not to win it.

 

[oldhermit]

I think this entire post is silly. Why should we pull scriptures apart, word for word, scriptures that are complete and clear! We learn from Acts 2:38 to repent and be baptized. John the Baptist teaches us about repentance, Christ speaks of it, we then learn and listen to scripture to know what we are asked to do. Baptism is also explained well, it is what we do in cooperation with our Lord and Savior to mark acceptance of all His truths for one way of explaining it. Baptism means baptism. We are told something miraculous happens at the time we do this, and that miracle is the Holy Spirit. We are not to add to what Acts 2:38 says and we are not to take anything away from it. What man says about it and decides it means has nothing to do with finding and living by truth.

Your point is well taken but, you must remember that words have meaning and the Holy Spirit is the architect of every single word used in scripture. Every word is selected with purpose and intent. If we fail to respect this we become abusers of the revealed grammar and communication between the text and the hearer breaks down.

 

[RedTent]

Your point is well taken but, you must remember that words have meaning and the Holy Spirit is the architect of every single word used in scripture. Every word is selected with purpose and intent. If we fail to respect this we become abusers of the revealed grammar and communication between the text and the hearer breaks down.

You rounded out my thinking beautifully! All scripture is from a mind that is above our mind, all scripture is something to reach for to understand the full meaning. We must not stop reaching for full understanding of scripture, but we also must be sure we are not adding our own fleshly thoughts to a scripture. It requires a lot of us, it requires being humble before the Lord, it requires lots of study and putting scripture in our minds and hearts, it requires the miracle of the Holy Spirit, and above all, it requires bravery. We must be brave enough to face the truth of God---not our flesh, not our traditions, but purely unencumbered God.

 

[dcontroversal]

You will not be able to find this definition of baptism anywhere in scripture. The only place baptism is ever regarded as a 'work' is in Col.2:12 and there it is called the work of God.


Again you will not find scripture defining baptism in this way.

wrong and wrong...Jesus calls it a work of righteousness and it is clear that it is a picture....buried with him in baptism!

 

[Atwood]

No Scripture is of Private Interpretation

To determine a doctrine, requires consideration of the whole council of God. One, for example, can take a pink highlighter & read from Gen - Rev marking all the passages on salvation. It is found that over & over the only MUST I DO for salvation is to believe.
Sirs what must I do to be saved?
Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, & you shall be saved.
Over and but one condition is put on man = faith/believe.

Also, it is noted that human works are specifically excluded from salvation:
"Not of works" (Eph 2).

Given those two facts, water baptism (a human work) cannot save.

On the other hand, while man is called to do one thing towards his salvation (believe),
God does many things that are salvific, including Spirit baptism. Spirit Baptism is an act of God, not man; and man is passive in it, man is baptized (put into the Body of Christ).

Now on a very few occasions, baptism is mentioned in a passage that concerns salvation, like Acts 2:38. In view of the above, one cannot interpret such rare verses to imply that water baptism saves.

Aside from one passage where water baptism is indicated to be a figure of salvation, the other few verses make very good sense as Spirit Baptism, and those verses do not mention water.

Moreover, the attempt to have different ways of being saved in different dispensations, as if there were a different method before the cross and after the cross, is bogus. And if you did take that wrong approach, you would be denied to quote anything the Lord Jesus said before the cross from your doctrine of salvation. So don't try to be arguing on that basis then also try to claim that there is water baptism in John 3 (word does not occur there).

Rest in the promises of God: Whosoever believes.
The Lord is not guilty of false advertising. Over & over the way of salvation is offered to man in the Bible, over & over by faith/belief alone, not one drop of water mentioned.

even so must the Son of man be lifted up; 15 that whosoever believeth may in him have eternal life.

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life. 17 For God sent not the Son into the world to judge the world; but that the world should be saved through him. 18 He that believeth on him is not judged: he that believeth not hath been judged already, because he hath not believed on the name of the only Son of God.

 

[oldhermit]

wrong and wrong...Jesus calls it a work of righteousness and it is clear that it is a picture....buried with him in baptism!

Jesus never used the word work in connection with baptism. He simply told John that being baptized was part of fulfilling righteousness. I cannot understand peoples preoccupation with trying to classify baptism as a 'work' in order to marginalize its importance. Scripture never calls it a work.

 

[mailmandan]

Jesus calls it a work of righteousness

Amen! By Jesus getting water baptized, it was a part of Him "fulfilling all righteousness" (Matthew 3:15). If water baptism stands between Jesus fulfilling all righteousness and not fulfilling all righteousness, then water baptism is clearly a "work of righteousness."

 

[mailmandan]

In Acts 2:38, "for the remission of sins" does not refer back to both clauses, "you all repent" and "each one of you be baptized," but refers only to the first. Peter is saying "repent unto the remission of your sins," the same as in Acts 3:19. The clause "each one of you be baptized" is parenthetical.

Acts 3:19 - Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord. *What happened to baptism?

Acts 10:43-47 - To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins. While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also (BEFORE WATER BAPTISM). For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then Peter answered, "Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" *What happened to baptism in verse 43?

Acts 11:17 - If therefore God gave them the same gift (Holy Spirit) as He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, (Acts 16:31 - Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved) who was I that I could withstand God?" When they heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God, saying, "Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance unto life. *What happened to baptism?

Acts 15:8,9 - So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. *What happened to baptism?

Faith in Jesus Christ "implied in genuine repentance" (rather than water baptism) brings the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38; 3:19; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31). *Perfect Harmony*

 

[oldhermit]

In Acts 2:38, "for the remission of sins" does not refer back to both clauses, "you all repent" and "each one of you be baptized," but refers only to the first. Peter is saying "repent unto the remission of your sins," the same as in Acts 3:19. The clause "each one of you be baptized" is parenthetical.

By what rule of Greek grammar do you determine this?

 

[mailmandan]

By what rule of Greek grammar do you determine this?

Acts 2:38 has two occurrences of the pronoun "your" or "humon"; both are second person plural in the genitive case. The first occurs in the phrase "each of you," in which humon functions as a partitive genitive, indicating the group from which each person derives. The second occurrence is in the phrase "for the remission of your sins," in which humon is a subjective genitive indicating whose sins are involved in the remission.

The basic rule of concord, in Greek, stipulates that a personal pronoun (in this case humon) agrees with its antecedent in gender and number.

The concord between verb and pronoun requires that the remission of sins be connected with repentance, not with baptism.

Now please explain to me how your interpretation of Acts 2:38 (baptism obtains remission of sins) is in harmony with Acts 3:19; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31.