Articles
The Way of God More Accurately
This week's article is a response to the response that I was given when I challenged the teaching in a tract that was floating around town, which I found in a shopping cart. Mr. Charles Hunt (from a Baptist Church in Somerset, KY) answered me very promptly, but unfortunately his explanation of the plan of salvation is not scriptural.
Please read his teachings (below) and consider how you might answer someone who made such statements to you. I hope that my own response will be helpful to those who are still learning how to give an answer.
"Hello, Thank you for taking the time to respond to the message in the tract distributed by our church. To clearly understand what Peter was saying in Acts 2:38 you need to read what He said in Acts 10:43, "To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins." This verse is as clear as Acts 2:38. Also note the condition for baptism that Peter sets in Acts 10:47 is that those who believed the Gospel he preached had received the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit dwells in born again believers. Also in Acts 16:30 the question is asked, not what should we do, but what must we do to be saved. Paul replied in verse 31, "And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." Paul said to Timothy in I Timothy 2:5, "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;" What is the person who baptizes but a mediator if baptism is necessary for salvation.
In Christian love,
pastor Chuck Hunt
My Response:
First of all, the idea that Peter preached the inaugural message of the kingdom on a day that has been foretold from the time of Isaiah (2:1-4) in such an obscure way that he could not be clearly understood until he expounded on his teaching 5+ years later (in Acts 10) is unbelievable. No, two thousand people who received Peter’s teaching understood it and responded by being baptized, and God added them to the church (v. 47).
Consider this, if Peter had drawn his sermon to a close after 2:21, I’m certain that Baptists would make it a focal point of their evangelistic efforts (just as they have done with Acts 16:31). However, have you ever thought about the fact that after the Jews asked, “Men and brethren, what must we do?” why didn’t Peter simply say, “What do you mean? Weren’t you listening? I already told you what to do. “Call on the name of the Lord and you shall be saved.” No, he said, “Repent, and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins.” Candidly, your explanation should be rejected because all you’ve done is pit verses against each other rather than seeking an interpretation that attempts to align all passages having to do with salvation with one cohesive thought. You can supply verses all day that only mention “believe” and I can provide passages that clearly teach that baptism saves (1 Pet. 3:21). Rather than planting our flag on any one mountain, let us embrace the mountain range—the sum of God’s truth (Ps. 119:160)!
The flaw in your reasoning is that you’ve overlooked the comprehensive meaning of the word “believe.” Take Acts 16 for example; you’ve stopped reading too soon. The rest of the story shows us what “believing on the Lord” looks like (just as Acts 2:38-47 shows us what “calling on the Lord” looks like in Acts 2). Please read Acts 16:32-34. Did you notice the urgency of baptism in this text? The man got his family out of bed in the middle of the night to be immersed for the forgiveness of their sins. Will you not admit that this pattern does not align with the denominational practice of scheduling “baptism Sunday, or some other far out date to be determined?” This would be a courageous stand, but one that was founded in truth.
Please note that after the family was baptized in the middle of the night, they brought Paul and Silas into their house, set food before them; and rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household. “Having believed” describes everything they did that evening to obey the gospel, including being baptized for the forgiveness of sins. Whereas you would teach people that “faith alone” is necessary for salvation, scripture shows that everything: faith, repentance, confession, and baptism is a part of believing on Him. One cannot truly say that he has believed on the Lord while neglecting to fulfill this command. This exact state of neglect is described in Acts 22:16, “And now, why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” (Yes, this is how we call on the name of the Lord.) Did you notice from the wording of this verse that Paul was still in sin? His sins had not yet been washed away in faith. Yet, I ask you, had Saul not yet believed in Jesus? A careful reading of Acts 9 will show that Saul has been thoroughly convinced. He even made the good confession, calling Jesus “Lord.” (Acts 9:6; 22:7-10). Had he repented? You bet! He’s no longer on his way to persecute believers. He’s asking Jesus, “what must I do?” He has prayed and fasted to God. Even after all of that, Ananias says, what are you waiting for…wash away your sins.
By the way, the common translation in Acts 9:6 “what you must do” is based on the exact same Greek word in Acts 2:37, which is often translated as “what shall we do.” Your response seemed to suggest that acts 10 was more forceful, as if in Acts 2 it was “what should we do” and Acts 10 was “must we do.” Hopefully you can see that a word study of Acts 9:6 and Acts 2:37 reveal this to be a distinction without merit.
Speaking of Acts 10, are you absolutely certain that the Spirit’s reception and the miraculous gifts that were given to the Gentiles were for the purpose of proving that they were already saved and did not need baptism? Acts 15:8 says that this was God “acknowledging them.” For what purpose? It was to show the Jews that they should no longer consider Gentiles unclean and unfit for the gospel. That was the purpose. God did the same thing to acknowledge someone back in Num. 11:25. Your assumption that the presence of the Spirit proves salvation and therefore baptism is unnecessary is dangerous and flawed. Did the presence of the Spirit in the prophet Balaam prove that he was saved? Why are you looking for texts to disprove what Jesus clearly said? (Mk. 16:15-16) And, in case you are tempted to say, “See, it doesn’t say ‘and is not baptized,’ let me just preemptively state the obvious, disbelievers are not baptized; that would have been redundant. That would have been unnecessary, and that did not need to be said.
It’s not often that I hear something new on this subject; I’ve never heard anyone say that a baptizer is a mediator. Well, he’s not. There is only one Mediator, the Man, Jesus Christ. There is no special power vested in a baptizer. For all intents and purposes, he doesn’t matter in this scenario. Salvation is between God, Christ and the believer. The believer finds someone (it doesn’t matter who) to baptize him. Are you trying to say that anyone involved in the process becomes our mediator? No way! This logic doesn’t fit. For example, hearing the gospel is necessary too. The eunuch in Acts 8 said, “How can I [understand] unless someone guides me.” Does this make Philip the evangelist a mediator because he assisted in the process of the eunuch’s obedience to the gospel? This makes no sense; it is a dodge and a rejection of the command of the Lord (Lk. 7:30).
Be not many of you teachers, knowing that you will receive a stricter judgment. Abandon your line of reasoning handed down from your father, Martin Luther. Seek the old paths! I assure you, no one in the first century was arguing that baptism was unnecessary. “Faith only” is a doctrine that came out of the reformation in the 1500’s and was an over-reaction to the legitimate complaints that were being raised against the ritualism of Catholicism. I would love to continue to study this with you. Are you willing?
