Baptismal Justification? An analysis of Acts 2:38
“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.”
This verse is used frequently to teach baptismal regeneration, the understanding here is that one must be baptized for regeneration to occur. The belief that the ordinance (or sacrament) of water baptism is required for salvation makes an understanding more adequately named as baptismal justification. Whether or not those who hold this position appreciate the term is somewhat irrelevant if it is an accurate summation of the belief. The label holds if peace before God does not happen unless a person is (water) baptized, regardless of how one feels about the label.
“The unimmersed (baptized) person “is still unpardoned, unjustified, unsanctified, unreconciled, unadopted, and lost to all Christian life and enjoyment.””
— Alexander Campbell, a founder of the ‘Church of Christ’ (Christianity Restored)
Is the position of baptismal justification true? In Ephesians 2:8–9 Paul writes that we are saved by GRACE (unmerited favor) through faith apart from works. Though many try to argue that when Paul uses ‘works’ in other places, such as Galatians or Romans, he only means ‘works of the law.’ Interestingly, in Ephesians, Paul does not ever allow such an assumption to be made. Paul does not say ‘works of the law’ or ‘works of the flesh’ or even ‘works of righteousness,’ his teaching here is all works. I understand that there is a claim that baptism is not a ‘work,’ but this is somewhat easily dismissed — Is water baptism only a work of God? Do you not have to move to be baptized? Did God send a hovering cloud to move the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8? Of course not. Baptism is not only a work of God. Just as preaching, taking the Lord’s Supper, or helping widows is not only a work of God — though God most certainly works through such deeds.
This brief aside is certainly not exhaustive, and much discussion could be had, but the biblical gospel is salvation by grace through faith apart from (all) works. Works do not play a part in our justification before God. Otherwise, grace would no longer be grace, and salvation would not be a gift (Romans 4:4, 11:5–6, Galatians 2:21, etc.…)
If justification before God is by faith apart from works, does Acts 2:38 contradict Paul? Does not Peter say, ‘Repent and be baptized…for the forgiveness of sins?
LOGICAL FALLACY?
Repentance + Baptism = Forgiveness of sins/ gift of Holy Spirit
Without both ‘A’ (Repentance) and ‘B’ (baptism), is it not inferred that forgiveness and the gift of the Holy Spirit cannot occur?
Such a takeaway, beyond contradicting Paul (and even Peter himself), as noted by others seems to commit a logical fallacy — the ‘negative inference fallacy.’ [1][2] This fallacy also known as an argument from ignorance, occurs when someone claims that a claim must be true because it has not been proven false, or that a claim must be false because it hasn’t been proven true.
In essence, just because the road gets wet when it rains doesn’t infer that because the road isn’t wet does not mean it is not raining. The negative inference here is clear — we can’t assume that because the streets aren’t wet, it isn’t raining. If, for example, we go outside and find it lightly raining but not yet raining heavily enough to cause my heated driveway to be visibly wet, we can easily see where our inference was in error. It is fallacious to assume that it is not raining solely because the streets aren’t wet.
When we apply this to our passage in question, we can see that it would be fallacious to say, ‘Because Fred has not been baptized in the name of Christ, he has not received forgiveness of sins.’ Fred may very well have received forgiveness of sins before being baptized, such as by grace through faith apart from works. Peter’s saying, ‘repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins’ can be compared to the statement, ‘If a man believes, is baptized, goes to church, takes communion, tithes, and helps widows, then he will be saved.’ We would err if we concluded that the statement was a list of requirements the man had to do in order to be saved in spite of other teaching.
To be clear, Peter does not say that baptism is a requirement for the forgiveness of sins; in fact, he teaches otherwise! In Acts 10:43 Peter says,
“…through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.”
We note quite clearly that water baptism is not listed as a requirement for the forgiveness of sins, and we would be in error to assume that Peter has merely offered two differing means of being forgiven! Peter did not teach altering means of forgiveness to the Jews and Gentiles.
In the next verse, we read that the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. They received the Holy Spirit before they were baptized by faith through hearing. They were not baptized TO receive forgiveness of sins or the gift of the Holy Spirit, but BECAUSE they had received the gift of the Holy Spirit by faith.
Peter says, ‘who is to withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit, just as we have?’ Peter gives us a description of not only how these Gentiles received the Holy Spirit but also how the apostles themselves received the Holy Spirit — before water baptism through faith.
They were not baptized to receive the Spirit but because they had already shown evidence of the Spirit falling upon them.
A QUESTION OF TRANSLATION?
“Peter replied, “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.” (NIV)
“Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (NKJV)
Πέτρος δὲ πρὸς αὐτούς, Μετανοήσατε, [φησίν,] καὶ βαπτισθήτω ἕκαστος ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ὑμῶν, καὶ λήμψεσθε τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος·
The Greek word in this passage that caused the most discussion is the Greek word ‘εἰς (eis)’, translated as ‘for’ in the passages above. This same word is translated elsewhere, such as in Romans 10:10, as ‘into’ or ‘unto.’ The point of contention is that ‘for’ in our passage must be understood in the fashion of ‘in order to get’ and can never be understood as ‘because of.’
The problem with thinking that ‘for’ can never be translated as ‘because of’ is that differing contexts CAN infer a ‘because of’ meaning. For instance, if I say, ‘Take a bat for your baseball game,’ do I mean that you need a bat to get a baseball game? Of course not. The context means quite clearly that I need a bat because of the game I am playing.
Or, one could say, ‘Take two aspirin for your headache,” and it is obvious to everyone that it does not mean “take aspirin in order to get a headache,” but instead, “take two aspirin because you already have a headache.” [3]
We find ample use of the Greek ‘eis’ in this exact fashion in the New Testament. In Matthew 12:41, we read, ‘The men of Ninevah will rise up at the judgment of this generation..*for* they repented at the preaching of Jonah..’ Now it is obvious that Jesus was not saying that the people repented ‘in order to get’ preaching, but rather they repented ‘because of’ the preaching.
See also Matthew 3:10, ‘…every tree not producing good fruit is cut down and thrown *into* the fire…’ Are the trees thrown ‘in order to get’ the fire? Of course not.
Finally, given our present focus on baptism, we read in Matthew 3:11, ‘I baptized you with water *for* repentance.’ Now it is clearly understood that the baptism is not done in order to obtain repentance, but because of the peoples repentance.
In the same we we understand the above uses, can we not see that it is at least probable that Peter is not communicating that we are to be baptized in order to get forgiveness of sins but rather because of repentance? Such an understanding certainly bears a stronger unified and cohesive reading with the rest of scripture than baptismal justification.
Before moving on from ‘eis’ completely, it is important to understand the Greek tenses used in the verse. There is a change between the second and third persons.
“Repent (second person plural), and be baptized (third-person singular), each one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins (second person plural), and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
Repent — second person plural — “You all repent”
Be baptized — third person singular — “You personally be baptized”
Forgiveness of Sins — second person plural — “for the forgiveness of our sins.”
In essence, should we not see a connection between the second person use of ‘repent’ with the second person use of ‘forgiveness of sins?’ The result of the change from the plural to the singular and back would seem to make a connection between forgiveness and repentance. [4][5]
‘You (plural) repent for the forgiveness of your (plural) sins, and let each one of you (singular) be baptized (singular).
It is the consistent position to allow the possibility of ‘eis’ in our passage to be read as ‘because of’ given its use elsewhere in scripture. It is our responsibility to bear the examination practice of the Bereans to ensure our understanding is cohesive and consistent with ALL of the scripture.
TO GLANCE AT CONTEXT
Context is everything. It is essential to see that Peter’s audience in Acts 2 was his own countrymen — Jews (Acts 2:5). It is important to understand that Peter’s teaching to the Jews is operating on the common ground he has with his countrymen. This is not the same commonality we see elsewhere, such as when Paul speaks to the Gentiles in Acts 17. Peter’s preaching relied heavily on the commonality found in the Old Testament, as we see a plethora of references to prophecy and passages that these men had been surrounded by (and looking forward to) since their youth.
In verse 36, we read;
‘Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified..’
He is addressing the Jews.
‘Now when they (Jews) heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?”
Peter’s words cause this demonstrably Jewish crowd to be ‘cut to the heart’. Why? Because they were asking a question that directly correlated with what they had just been told: that the messiah, the Christ, for whom they and their forefathers had been waiting centuries, had been murdered. By them! They murdered the very one who was foretold to save them. Many like to interpret Acts 2:38 as, ‘What must we do to be saved?’ Such as what was asked in Acts 16:30, but that was not their question. They had murdered their promised messiah — God incarnate. The entirety of Judaism, what had been promised for millennia, had come crashing down on their heads.
The question is more clearly understood as, (Brothers) ‘What must we do? We murdered our messiah. What is left of our religion?’
Then Peter’s response,
“Repent and believe in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”
‘Everyone whom the Lord our God calls to Himself’ rings clearly of Paul’s words in Romans 8:30. To be clear Peter is addressing the issue of guilt — but he is not leaving such guilt suspended. The people asked what they were to do because they had killed the messiah and (in some sense) destroyed their religion, and Peter’s response flips it (in a very Christly fashion) into the more important issue at hand — what to do with all guilt and where to go with the promises of old.
Peter establishes that the promises of old are not suspended or empty, that they are tied up in Christ. The ‘old’ religion has not died, it has been fulfilled and that promise of old, for all the Lord calls to himself, is that our guilt can be washed away (Ezekiel 36:25) by the Lord who calls man to repentance.
I do not presume many would disagree with my points above, but my intention in pointing out that what was asked by the Jews was not, ‘what must I do to be saved?’ is paramount. Peter’s response, of course, addresses their guilt — but it also addresses what the Jews are to do with their heritage. The account we see following Peter’s sermon in Acts Two is the establishment of the New Testament Church post ascension , and his response to their question directly correlates to how one enters that NT body of believers — water baptism. Peter’s response is twofold and must be understood twofold to avoid concluding that Peter has preached two manners in which sins are forgiven, one by repentance and baptism and another by belief.
For further see “Does Baptism Save You?”
“AND NOW WE KNOW THE REST OF THE STORY.”
After Peters transformative interaction with the Centurion family in Acts 10, he is confronted by the Jews — specifically members of the circumcision party — and offers a defense of what has occurred.
“As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ If then God gave the same gift (the Holy Spirit) 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?
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.”
As previously pointed out, we note that Peter is identifying the exact manner that the Gentiles received the gift of baptism in the Holy Spirit (faith) with the apostles also. So we do not have one ‘outlier’ as it were, but ‘two’ if we want to say that the Centurions family was an exception. Both the Centurions family and the apostles received the Holy Spirit before water baptism through belief on Christ.
It would be foolish for us to say that Peter is teaching differing means of receiving the forgiveness of sins for Gentiles and Jews. Such a takeaway would not only leave enormous holes in our doctrine but is simply untenable as Peter and the apostles were Jews themselves who received the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit before baptism!
Jew and Gentile believers received the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit upon repentant faith in Jesus Christ.
There is a common defense for those who receive forgiveness of sins absent (water) baptism — mainly that God can forgive in exigent circumstances. This is usually brought up in response to the thief on the cross — Roman Catholics, for example, say that he falls under ‘baptism of desire.’ But here we have a glaring hole to the ‘exigent circumstances’ argument for both the Centurions family (and the apostles, lest we forget). Why? It cannot be argued that the Centurions family received the forgiveness of sins and the Holy Spirit before water baptism due to an exigent circumstance precisely because they were immediately baptized after receiving Him. They were quite literally close to a body of water because there was one nearby.
We see great consistency between Peter and Paul.
“In Him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in Him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit…” (Ephesians 1:13)
CONCLUSION
How should we understand Acts 2:38 in light of this? It would certainly be foolish for us to ignore the greater context of how forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit are given elsewhere. Doing so seems to build our argument on taking the passage out of context and forcing scripture through a tradition.
“Eat and grab a fork every one of you here at this restaurant for dinner, and you will receive satisfied stomachs.”
“…everyone who eats in this restaurant receives satisfied stomachs.”
Is having a fork necessary for the patron to eat dinner and have a satisfied stomach? No. It would be faulty reasoning for me to take the above statements and make such conclusion as it, I maintain, is faulty to make the same argument from the similar statements in Acts 2:38 and 10:43.
What did Christ do when Satan brought forth scripture to tempt him to do evil? He answered with more scripture, and scripture in context, to show that Satan was twisting scripture from it’s meaning.
I do not think that my reader here will disagree, but if our only argument for baptismal justification is that our tradition says so — is that not a proof unto ourselves that our biblical understanding may be founded upon a position that views scripture through tradition instead of scripture determining our tradition? Is God a God of confusion? Does Peter contradict himself?
Peter himself teaches that what saves us is not the physical act of baptism, not the outward ritualistic act of washing with water — that is not what saves, but rather the inward spiritual disposition of the heart in repentance toward God (1 Peter 3:21). [6] The rest of the Scripture teaches that this faithful repentance is a gift worked in us through God (Philippians 2:13, 2 Timothy 2:25, Acts 11:18, etc.…). Because water cleanses the dirt from the body, it is a fitting visible sign for the spiritual cleansing that God has effected for our souls in Christ. Repent and be baptized for (because of) the forgiveness of sins. [7]
How does the preaching in Acts 2:38 end?
“So those who received his word (believed) were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.”
Just as in the later passage in Acts 10, the gift of the Holy Spirit was not caused by water baptism but rather preceded baptism. Baptism happened because of belief. Baptism does not work ex operate, nor is it required, according to Peter, to cause the forgiveness of sins or the receiving of the gift of the Holy Spirit.
We are not baptized to receive remission of sins, but rather because we have remission of sins. Our justification from sins, our having peace with God, takes place at the point of saving faith — not at the point of water baptism, which biblically occurs afterward. If a person has been justified and has sins eternally forgiven at the point of faith, then baptism is clearly not necessary to forgive sins or have spiritual life (faith).
As a closing note, saying that baptism is not necessary for justification is not to say that baptism is not important. We would not say that family is unimportant simply because I do not presently require them to maintain the necessities of life (eating, breathing, etc.…). Baptism is necessary precisely because it is a commanded ordinance for all who believe in Christ, but that is not to say that it is necessary to have peace with God.
Those adhering to baptismal justification have sadly grasped the shadow and missed the substance. A mistake the Jews made (Romans 9:30–33). In doing so, they fall to a weaker knowledge of both shadow and substance.
“And THE LORD added to their number day by day those who were being saved.”
Acts 2:47
Footnotes:
[1] Paul Dixon. Negative Inference Fallacies of Acts 2:38, Matthew 19:9, and 1 Corinthians 11:5, Accessed April 1st, 2024 — Link
[2] Got Questions. Does Acts 2:38 teach that baptism is necessary for salvation?— Link
[3] Ibid
[4] Ibid
[5] Bob Ross. Cambellism It’s History and Heresies (1962), pg. 91–93
[6] Wayne Grudem. Systematic Theology, Second Edition: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, pg. 1204
[7] Tabletalk Magazine. Baptism and Forgiveness, October 2017 — Link
