Peter said to them, “Repent, and be immersed, everyone of you, in the name of Jesus the Messiah, on the basis of the forgiveness of sins…” (Acts 2:38).The preposition “for” (eis) in the expression “for the forgiveness of sins” raises the question of the relationship between immersion in water (baptism) and the forgiveness of sins. Some interpret the preposition as expressing purpose (the purpose of baptism is the forgiveness of sins), some as expressing result (baptism results in forgiveness).A contextually more plausible interpretation assumes a causal meaning (forgiveness of sins is the cause of baptism); the Jews who had heard Peter explain that Jesus was the crucified, risen, and exalted Messiah and Lord who saves Israel in the “last days” had repented of their sins and come to faith in Jesus. Otherwise, they would not have been willing to be immersed in water for purification “in the name of Jesus the Messiah”; they were immersed in water for purification “on the basis of the forgiveness of sins,” which they had received from Jesus.
E. Schnabel, Acts (Zondervan 2012), 164-65.
Dear Steve:
ReplyDeleteHappy thanksgiving!
A simple parenthesis helps us to understand what Acts 2:38 is really saying, “Then Peter said unto them, Repent (and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ) for the remission of your sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”
See my posting on this here
http://baptistgadfly.blogspot.com/2009/03/baptism-for-remission.html
Blessings,
Stephen
Paul the Apostle gives an account of this as was said to him by Ananias. Here's the Acts 22 version:
ReplyDelete16 And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.'
This was part of the discussion I had with my Lutheran pastor 16 years ago (before I left and joined a Baptist church) when it was time to baptize my oldest (who turned 16 this past May). I already had Baptist leanings and my pastor's arguments, which followed the standard Lutheran spiel, were unconvincing. This passage could be read more than one way, which means that we need to look at other passages to settle the meaning. Since baptism wasn't required in every Biblical instance, salvation isn't contingent on it. Since the baptism of the Holy Spirit was taught by both John the Baptist and the Apostles over and against water baptism 1) means that baptism of the Holy Spirit (indwelling linked to it in Acts 11:15-16) is what is really contingent and 2) doesn't mitigate the command to baptize (apparently with water as was also practiced by the Apostles afterward) in the Great Commission. It's as simple as that.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1 Peter 3:21-22 is a common argument. Unfortunately, it's misunderstood when used this way. There is a correlation between baptism by water and baptism of the Holy Spirit (giving us the power to make "an appeal to God for a good conscience"), not an equation. The baptism that saves is the baptism of the Holy Spirit and baptism by water symbolizes this. This is a parenthetical statement in the middle of a discourse on suffering. Look at 4:1,2. So I can call myself free from sin if I have suffered in the flesh? No. The Greek in Peter's letters doesn't translate well because it's pretty sophisticated. If you aren't good with Greek (I'm not good enough for Peter's letters), or even seeing through his Greek usage (given that he needed John Mark as a translator in his travels, he likely had a translator for his letters), you have to be satisfied with the larger arguments he makes and qualify some of the minutia with other scripture to understand it better.
DeleteActs 10:44-48. The baptism of the Holy Spirit is different than baptism by water.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNicholas Leone said:
Delete"Most people are offended at the idea that Baptism can save! . . . Baptism in the Holy Spirit cannot be separated from water Baptism. They happen simultaneously."
This is totally true. It's my experience as well. I mean, I didn't become a Christian because I trusted Christ. Rather I became a Christian in this way.
You see, I was a secular atheist. But I've always appreciated all sorts of architecture. One day, as I was traveling across Europe, I went inside a beautiful church. I was walking by the baptistery. I wanted to take a closer peek at the baptismal font because it had some water in it, and so I edged toward it. Another tourist was trying to elbow his way in, but in his zeal he accidentally pushed a bit too hard and knocked me over and into the baptismal font. But, wouldn't you know it! I was instantly saved and became a Christian.
From this point on, I've recognized the best way to evangelize is not to preach or teach the gospel, or to point people to the Bible, or somesuch. Rather, the best way to evangelize is simply to hide near a baptistery, and jump out at the least expected moment in order to push in unsuspecting walkerbys!
I should clarify that Lutherans believe that Baptism must be combined with the Gospel in order to save. We deny the ex opere operato view of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.
DeleteHere is another good article on the Lutheran view of Baptism:
http://lutherantheologystudygroup.blogspot.com/2011/06/luther-and-baptismal-regeneration.html#!/2011/06/luther-and-baptismal-regeneration.html
However, you later make the following claim: "To Lutherans, baptism is Gospel."
DeleteWhy did Peter, only ten days after hearing the Lord Jesus give the Great Commission, tell the people to be baptized in Jesus name, rather than telling them to be baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as Jesus instructed?
ReplyDeleteHere's what Peter said:
Delete"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. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself."
Why isn't it possible to consider Acts 2:38-39 in a Trinitarian fashion?
Depends on what you mean. If you're viewing "baptism in the name of X" as a baptismal formula, then I think that's anachronistic. That reflects later liturgical conditioning, which we unconsciously read back into the earlier text. But I don't think these represent alternative baptismal formulates.
DeleteIn Biblical usage, to do something "in the name of X" means acting on the authority of someone else.
To be baptized "in Jesus name" rather than the name of the Trinity is only a problem if that's misused as a unitarian prooftext (e.g. Jesus-only Pentecostalism).
Here is the thing: I work in South Asia among believers who have little education. For some of them, the Bible is the only book they have ever read. They don't know what a baptismal formula is, wouldn't understand the concept of anachronism, and are utterly clueless about liturgy. They are reading the Bible simply and directly, relying on oral explanations of the Scriptures.
DeleteWhen they read Matthew 29:19 and then Luke 2:38–39, they are confused why Peter didn't follow Jesus' instructions. I know because they asked me about this the other day.
I'm afraid your answer would not be helpful to my audience in South Asia. In fact, if I gave your answer to them, it would probably give the Jesus-only faction the upper-hand because they would accuse me of cleverly trying to twist the Scriptures to fit my interpretation.
So do you have another answer that I could give to explain why Peter said "in the name of Jesus" instead of "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" that is both true, less complicated, easier to translate, and would be more convincing for my audience?
"So do you have another answer that I could give to explain why Peter said 'in the name of Jesus' instead of 'in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit' that is both true, less complicated, easier to translate, and would be more convincing for my audience?"
DeleteHi J,
On the one hand, that's a tall order. For example, I trust you're aware, but even though one could properly exegete the text, it's not necessarily the case that the same exegete would have the training and experience to appropriately communicate their exegesis in translation to your South Asian audience. I'm not just talking about the myriads of languages and dialects spoken in South Asia (e.g. Hindi, Tamil, Bengali, Sinhalese). But even within the same language groups there are those from different religious backgrounds (e.g. Hindu, Muslim). And so on and so forth. So perhaps your question might be better addressed to a South Asian missiologist or other relevant scholar.
On the other hand, I think what Steve has written would be a good start for you, given (I take it) your English and Western background. Also, I trust you have access to tons of excellent commentaries, theological works, biblical theologies, etc. Indeed, the fact that you're online is already head and shoulders above many. Much of the answer to your question can be found via all such available resources. Anyway, I'm sure Steve and others can provide you with further recommendations, which in turn you can take to your audience if you think it'd be useful. But might I please humbly suggest this would require diligent study on your part too?
Of course, as far as "convincing" your audience, that's not entirely up to you. Even the best person for the job who presents the message in the best way for the audience to accept it may not necessarily be able to convince many in the audience. That could be disappointing, but it could also be liberating. Obviously we should always strive to do our best, but at the same time God is in control of the results.
Just my two cents' worth. But again I'm sure others like Steve could offer far better responses.
By the way, you mention:
Delete"I work in South Asia among believers who have little education. For some of them, the Bible is the only book they have ever read...They are reading the Bible simply and directly, relying on oral explanations of the Scriptures."
This may be the case for some of them. But is this the case for all of them? I have a lot of friends from South Asia who have described to me situations similar to yours. But depending on where you are and the like, it might not be the case that everyone in the locale is uneducated or illiterate. Certainly there could be those who have as much access to biblical resources as we do. Again, of course, it depends where you are. But take India or Sri Lanka. Lots of parts are quite developed and not terribly different from Western cities. There are lots of missionaries to those places (in comparison to other parts of the world). It's likely many of them have dealt with your scenario. In any case perhaps you can target those who are more educated and literate since they could be in a better position to explain the exegesis and theology to their brethren? As well as ask missionaries and others who have dealt with your question since I don't think it'd be a totally unheard of question.
"When they read Matthew 29:19 and then Luke 2:38–39, they are confused why Peter didn't follow Jesus' instructions. I know because they asked me about this the other day."
DeleteI don't think Jesus is giving instructions on *how* to baptize. Rather, he's stating the authority by which baptism is administered.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete