Jordan Cooper recently released a video that's partly an argument for baptismal regeneration. I've already interacted with the large majority of the points he makes (e.g., here on the alleged parallel between Acts 2:38 and 16:30, here on 1 Peter 3:21, here on the extrabiblical sources). What I want to do in this post is say more about Acts 10.
Is the prebaptismal reception of the Spirit by Cornelius and his associates exceptional rather than normative, meant to accommodate some initial resistance to Gentile baptism? It seems that Jordan would frame the issue that way or in a similar manner. You can go here to listen to some of his relevant comments.
Cornelius and Peter had already received visions indicating the acceptance of the Gentiles. The subject had already been discussed prior to the giving of the Spirit near the end of the chapter. The alignment between Cornelius' vision and Peter's had already provided supernatural evidence for onlookers, not just Cornelius and Peter, prior to the reception of the Spirit later on. And as that earlier evidence illustrates, a prebaptismal reception of the Spirit wouldn't be needed in order to provide some form of evidence for the acceptance of the Gentiles. Furthermore, Peter had already visited the Gentiles involved in a way that previously would have been looked down upon (verse 28). And he was able to proclaim the gospel to these Gentiles without encountering any resistance we know of from those present. It was already understood that Cornelius and his associates would be saved (11:14). Cornelius had a good reputation (10:22), his claim to have received a vision was corroborated by Peter's vision, and Peter was already convinced, before the prebaptismal reception of the Spirit, that God was accepting the Gentiles in contrast to what had previously been expected (10:28-29). The gospel message Peter goes on to communicate is referred to as what God commanded Peter to proclaim (10:33). And what sense would it make to offer the gospel to the Gentiles if being baptized is necessary for justification and it was unknown whether Gentiles can be baptized? Peter says that this gospel is for those "in every nation" (10:35). The "everyone" of verse 43 clearly includes Gentiles. No objection was raised by Peter's companions after all of these things had been said, as far as we can tell. So, it's unlikely that an unusual timing of the reception of the Spirit was needed to persuade people to not resist the baptism of Gentiles. What was said prior to the reception of the Spirit assumes that Gentiles can and will be saved.
It could be objected that although Peter and his companions had enough evidence to accept the baptism of Gentiles prior to verse 44, and their behavior suggests that they did accept it before verse 44, maybe they didn't. People sometimes don't believe what they have adequate evidence for, and people sometimes act as if they believe something they don't believe. That's a possible explanation of Acts 10. But that isn't the issue. The issue is what's the best explanation, not what's a possible explanation. If Peter and his companions had adequate evidence that Gentiles could be baptized before verse 44, and they acted as if they thought they had adequate evidence before that verse, they probably already accepted the baptism of Gentiles prior to verse 44.
The amazement in verse 46 is likely an ongoing amazement, continuing and increasing what had already been going on, which is why the people with Peter had already gone along with multiple forms of accepting and associating with Gentiles prior to the prebaptismal reception of the Spirit. Similarly, in 11:17, Peter refers to how the reception of the Spirit was evidence that Peter shouldn't stand against what God was doing among the Gentiles, even though Peter had already reached that conclusion before the time of the reception of the Spirit. Verse 46 of chapter 10 makes the most sense as further persuasion among people already persuaded, not a decision to accept the Gentiles at that point after rejecting them up to that point. Besides, as I mentioned earlier, it's not as though receiving the Spirit prior to baptism with accompanying signs would have been the only sort of miracle that could have persuaded Peter's companions if they needed persuading at that point. Most likely, Peter's question in verse 47 is rhetorical, a means of underscoring how obvious it was that they should proceed to baptizing these Gentiles. In fact, he goes on to "order" the baptism in verse 48 without waiting for approval from his companions, apparently. He was an apostle who had authority over the other people present. If it was normative to receive the Spirit at the time of baptism, Peter could have ordered the baptism to be done, and the Spirit could have been received at the time of the baptism, probably without any significant resistance from anybody else present. The idea that the reception of the Spirit prior to baptism was unusual, but needed to be done to persuade the people present to allow the baptism is a poor explanation of the passage.
In both Acts 10 and in the recounting of the events in chapter 11, there are other factors involved that work against baptismal regeneration. In both chapters, there are comments about how remarkable it is that Gentiles have received the Spirit and been accepted by God (10:45, 11:18). But there's an absence of any comment about being surprised that the timing of the reception of the Spirit was prebaptismal, and there's no effort to explain why baptism should be done when the individuals involved had already been regenerated, had been forgiven, had received the Spirit, etc. You get the impression that it was normal for such things to happen before baptism. Peter just refers to "believing" as the means of receiving justification in chapter 11 (verse 17), and his audience there just refers to "repentance" in verse 18 (with repentance being involved in faith, like two sides of a coin). Just as in 10:43, faith keeps getting mentioned as the means of receiving justification without any reference to baptism.
The individuals in 11:18 are referred to as "quieting down" just after the prebaptismal reception of the Spirit is mentioned. But they may have been responding to all that Peter said, not just the last portion of it. More significantly, the response of the individuals in 11:18 isn't relevant to what I'm addressing. Those individuals weren't present during the events of chapter 10. So, a reception of the Spirit at the time of baptism would have quieted them down as well. No prebaptismal timing was needed in chapter 10 to persuade the people in chapter 11. The prebaptismal timing of the reception of the Spirit can't be explained by 11:18. Those individuals even objected to Peter's visiting Gentiles and eating with them (11:2-3), something Peter's companions in chapter 10 apparently went along with. That's further evidence that the views held by the companions of Peter in chapter 10 are to be distinguished from the views of the people in chapter 11. And, again, the people in chapter 11 seem to have considered justification prior to baptism normal anyway, for multiple reasons discussed above.
When the events of chapter 10 come up again in chapter 15, the focus is on the means by which justification is received (e.g., 15:1). We're told that justification is received through faith in the heart (15:8-9), baptism isn't mentioned, and Cornelius and his associates are referred to as if their means of receiving justification is normative rather than exceptional. Peter's unqualified reference to continuity between how justification was received in Acts 10 and how it's normally received makes more sense if there's full continuity rather than partial continuity. The more similar the means of receiving justification in Acts 10 is to the normal means of receiving justification, the more sense Peter's comments in Acts 15 make. Seeing baptismal regeneration as the norm makes less sense of Acts 15.
To summarize a few of the points I've made:
- It looks like Peter and his companions in Acts 10 were already willing to accept the baptism of Gentiles prior to verse 44, which means a prebaptismal reception of the Spirit wasn't needed to persuade them to accept Gentile baptism.
- Even if they'd needed more persuading that Gentiles can be baptized, such evidence could be provided without offering something inconsistent with baptismal regeneration. While God might use something inconsistent with baptismal regeneration even if baptismal regeneration were true, that possibility doesn't make such a scenario the best explanation of what happened. Inconsistency with baptismal regeneration makes more sense if baptismal regeneration is false than if it's true.
- The prebaptismal reception of justification, the Spirit, etc. is referred to as if it's normative in Acts 10 and elsewhere.
That last point involves many independent, converging lines of evidence. See here regarding the prominence of sola fide, with the exclusion of baptism and every other work, in Acts in general, not just in chapter 10 and the later chapters that discuss the events of chapter 10. I've written elsewhere about how Acts 10 parallels Galatians 3. The parallels make more sense if what Cornelius and those with him experienced was normative rather than exceptional as far as the means of receiving justification is concerned. Acts 10 is another example of what we see over and over again in the Old Testament era, in the gospels, elsewhere in Acts, and in the other portions of the New Testament covering the timeframe after Jesus' public ministry (like Romans 10). Keep in mind that these passages exclude baptism in a variety of ways (by limiting the means of receiving justification to the heart, by excluding works while describing works in a way that seems to include baptism, by giving so many examples of people being justified apart from baptism without providing any examples of a person being justified at the time of baptism, etc.). So, these passages aren't just saying that it's normative for faith to be included. They're also saying it's normative for baptism to be excluded. The best explanation for why justification occurs before baptism in Acts 10 is that it's normal for justification to occur before baptism. Justification apart from baptism isn't an exception to the rule. It is the rule.
No comments:
Post a Comment