If this objection suggests that “calling upon the name of the Lord” will result in the salvation (and it is) of the prospect, …then I think that we have finally found a point of agreement. How could one argue with Peter's very word, “Whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved”? But this leads the Bible student to ask another question, “How does a person call upon His name?”

We know that it doesn't mean to vocally “call {upon} His name”, as Matthew 7:21 reveals. Not everyone “who calls {Him} Lord will be saved.” Are we to then conclude that “calling upon the name of the Lord” refers to prayer? Or perhaps to a specific prayer for salvation? There is little or no evidence to support such an argument.

Again, as we attempt to understand the scriptures we must allow them to speak for themselves. In Acts 22:16 we see that Ananias told Paul to, “Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.' ” Be baptized as you do what, Paul? “Calling on His name.” As Paul obeyed God's command to be baptized (through the words of Ananias), He was said to be “calling on His name.” But does that contradict Acts 2:21?

There is no doubt that the listeners in Acts 2 were giving Peter their full attention. They would have heard verse 21 as well as any other part of Peter's sermon. After all, Peter mentioned salvation in this very text. If Peter had meant for his hearers to pray their way to salvation (i.e. the sinner's prayer), why didn't his audience understand the phrase “call on His name” to be referring to prayer? And why did they ask Peter, “What shall we do?” if he had already told them all that they needed to do was pray? Praying alone was not considered to be “calling upon the name of the :Lord.”

Once again, we see the harmony of Scripture. Peter's answer (Acts 2) in verse 38 is the fulfillment of the prophecy quoted in verse 21. While the hearers may have clearly understood that they must “call upon the name of the Lord” to be saved, they still needed to know how. In Acts 2:38 Peter tells them exactly how to do so. Quite simply, if they already knew that beforehand, they would not have asked Peter. Acts 2:21 and Acts 2:38 are speaking of the same act of obedience, submission to baptism for the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Most people immediately think of water when they think of a baptism, and that is a mistake, as can be seen by studying the above list of baptisms. We should be careful not to jump to the conclusion that we are talking about water in Acts 2:38.Baptism doesn't always involve water. How do we know it means water in Acts 2:38?

I am immediately drawn to quote one of my childhood heroes, Charlie Brown. “Good grief!” Peter, in response to the question, “What shall we do?” tells his hears to, “Repent….” (v38). Peter told them to “be baptized.” If Peter had meant for them to be baptized in or by the Holy Spirit, how could they have obeyed? In order to be immersed in water, we know that we must go where the water is to be found. (Read about the eunuch in Acts 8.) If we had been commanded to be baptized in or by the Spirit, what would we do? Where would we go?

Incidentally, I think it interesting to note that most of those that object to baptism for the forgiveness of sins do believe in baptism as “an outward sign of an inward grace.” My question is, “What element is involved in this baptism?” Their answer, “water.” I once again quote Charlie; “Good grief!”

In Romans 8:9 Paul says that, " . . . if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him." So having God's Spirit is one and the same as belonging to God or being saved. John 3:6 says, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” Since the Gentiles in Acts 10 received the Holy Spirit BEFORE they were baptized in water, baptism is not necessary. Why is it that those who always quote Acts 2:38 never mention this?

Answer: This question assumes that those who believe in baptism for the forgiveness of sins are unwilling to deal with the lessons from Acts 10 and Romans 8:9. However, again this is completely unfounded. The truth is that Acts 10 supports the necessity of baptism, rather than negates it. When the Gentiles had received the Holy Spirit “just as the apostles” had (Acts 10:47), they were baptized.

We repeat, in what way had the apostles received the Holy Spirit? The Holy Spirit had “come upon” (Acts 1:8) or “rested” upon the apostles (Acts 2:3) in a miraculous way. This happened to the apostles as fulfillment of the promise that they had been given by Jesus Christ (John 14:26; Acts 1:8). The Spirit was given to them in order to empower them to do the work of establishing the church of the Lord Jesus Christ and as a SIGN to those who were present. Can you imagine being there on Pentecost and hearing the apostles speak to sixteen distinct nations in their own language? Wow! It would have been obvious to all that since these men had been with Jesus, and since the signs of their receiving the Spirit were so amazing, that this was from God! Nicodemus saw this truth as evident in the miracles of Jesus (John 3:2). (Again see Acts 1:8. Also read John chapters 14 through 16 and 1 Cor. 2:1-4.)

Returning to Acts 10 we once again point out that the Gentiles in this account received the Holy Spirit in the same way that the apostles had (i.e. in a miraculous way). For one to claim that the Gentiles reception of the Holy Spirit in this manner shows that they were saved previous to baptism, is to assume that EVERYONE was to have the Spirit “coming upon” them in just the same way as the apostles. But this is not the case at all.

So, when we read Acts 10 (and 11) and attempt to understand these chapters in context, we see that the miraculous reception of the Holy Spirit by the Gentiles is again a SIGN, this time to show the Jews that God has offered His grace (i.e. plan of redemption) to the Gentiles, which was a tough pill for the Jews (who thought that they were God's race chosen for salvation) to swallow. I know that I'm being repetitious, but I need to say it one more time, so allow me to say it this way, “It took a miracle to show the Jews that God wants ALL men saved EVERYWHERE (2 Pet. 3:9).

After this miracle, which was again accompanied by the speaking in tongues (other languages), it was evident to all who were present, and to those who later heard (Acts 15) that this was from God! Wow! (again) Just like in Acts 2! So it was still necessary for the Gentiles to be immersed into Christ in order to be saved. Luke specifically mentions their baptism (for the forgiveness of sins and the [indwelling] gift of the Holy Spirit.) even after the miraculous “reception” of the Holy Spirit.

There are scriptures (later in the book of Acts) that give different instructions for salvation. The answer is different for the Gentiles than it was for the Jews in Acts 2:38. If you read Acts 10 it is obvious that the Holy Spirit was given to the Gentiles before they were baptized rather than after as it was told to the Jews in chapter two.

There is absolutely no evidence that shows a different plan of salvation for the Jews than for the Gentiles. As we mentioned earlier, Peter's words in Acts 2:38 apply both to those who were present and to those “who [were] far off” (i.e. Gentiles). In order for one to disprove Acts 2:38, he must find explicit instructions that contradict this command. But since the Bible never contradicts itself and there is no such scripture. . . .

We have briefly discussed the conversion of the Gentiles in Acts 10 (Objection 5). It seems that those who object want to rebuke the Church of Christ for “too often” referencing Acts 2:38, continue to use a single passage (Acts 10) to prove what they would have us to believe. As those who object often point out, the Bible student should look at the book of Acts (and other scripture) in its entirety. But that is not done in this instance or in many of the noted objections.

Acts 10 records the account of Cornelius and the Gentiles salvation. The primary purpose of the events of Acts 10 are to show Peter and the apostles, and the church, that God is impartial and welcomes all who will come to Him into His kingdom (Acts 15:5-10). Nothing is said in Acts 10 or anywhere else about the Gentiles being saved before baptism.

However, something is said about the Holy Spirit coming upon the Gentiles in Acts 10 just as He had come upon the apostles in Acts 2 (Acts 15:8). The Gentiles received the Holy Spirit in exactly the same way that the apostles had received the Holy Spirit. But this is not speaking about the indwelling gift of the Spirit. The apostles received what is commonly called the baptism of the Holy Spirit in order to empower them for the purpose for which they had been chosen. The Holy Spirit came upon the Gentiles while Peter was speaking in a miraculous way so that those who were present would see, hear and know that God accepted the Gentiles into the kingdom, making no distinction between the Gentiles and the Jews (Acts 15:8).

In order for one to claim that God's terms of salvation were set forth in Acts 10, he must insist that God saves no one except that they first receive the miraculous reception of the Holy Spirit just as the Gentiles and apostles had. This means that there would of necessity have to be the evidence of (at least) the speaking of tongues. The Holy Spirit coming upon them would have to be evident to all, as it was in the recorded account. This is inconsistent with both the purpose of the events found in Acts 10 and with every other scripture that deals with the terms of salvation.

In Acts 8-10 we have on record, examples of individuals, all who were saved previous to baptism. Since these individual conversions did not take place in the earlier portion of the Book of Acts, this shows that up to time salvation had been offered only to Israel (Jews). In Acts 8-10 we have at least three different individuals receiving salvation before being baptized. And in Acts 16 we are given the terms for individual salvation, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household” (Acts 16:31).

This objection is based upon the idea that there was no Gentile or individual saved before Acts 8. If I understand this view correctly, since the primary reason for the events of Acts 10 was to show that God also accepted the Gentiles into the kingdom, salvation was not offered to the Gentiles (or individuals) until then, but only to the Jews as a nation.

It is often suggested that all other examples and instructions for conversion to Christ before this were made to the Jews nationally. Allegedly, Peter was not telling the “Jews” individually how to be saved, but was only speaking to them as a whole. Therefore, since these were not instructions given to individuals, but to a particular nation, they differ from those given later in the book. (I must avidly point out that the instructions for salvation DO NOT change throughout the book of Acts or the New Testament!) Supposedly, Peter was talking to the Jews as a nation (only) in Acts 2:38 when he gave the means of salvation. But those who raise this objection are in error. Since Peter gave instructions on how to be saved and over three thousand individuals responded and were baptized, how can one argue that Peter's words were not intended for personal (individual) salvation? Let's take a brief look at some of the scriptures often given as an objection to accepting Peter's (and the apostles) words concerning the terms of salvation in the first seven chapters of Acts.

Acts 1:6-8, “So when they had come together, they were asking Him, saying, "Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?" 7 He said to them, "It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority; 8 but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth."

It is claimed that Acts 1:6-8 shows that the apostles would be witnesses specifically (and only) to the Jews. This passage deals with the apostles asking Jesus “when [He] would restore the kingdom of Israel?” In asking this question of Jesus, they were showing that they had yet to understand the purpose of Christ upon earth, to establish His kingdom, the church (i.e. to bring salvation to a lost world). The apostles had held this physical view of the kingdom throughout Jesus' ministry. And as Jesus answers their question, He tells the apostles that it was not for them to understand times or epochs, but that when they received power they would be His witnesses (i.e. preach the gospel) even to the remotest part of the earth. The preaching of the gospel to all of mankind (Matt. 28:19) would be in direct contradiction with “restoring” the physical kingdom of Israel as it had previously existed.

There is no doubt that Peter makes specific reference to Israel in Acts 2:36. After all, who was it that crucified the Lord? And who was it that was present in Jerusalem? It was the Jews. However, it is also unquestionably true that the preaching of Peter (i.e. Word of God) laid their sins bare (Heb. 4:12), both as a nation and individually. However, some would have us arrive at a conclusion based upon a misunderstanding of the text.

Acts 2:36 and the following verses understood in context show that what Peter has to say to the Jews also applies to the Gentiles. While it's easy forone to seize upon verse 36 and point out that Jesus is speaking to the Jews, it takes little more effort to continue reading and see that Peter applies his words (i.e. the promise of verse 38) to the Gentiles as well.

Acts 2:37-39, “Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brethren, what shall we do?" 38 Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 "For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.”

As we read Peter's words, we see that the promise of “forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit” is also given to the Gentiles and any further descendants of the Jews (“you and your children and for all who are far off”). So, as we read verses 36 through 38 collectively, we see that both the conditions (“be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ”) and the promise (forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit) are for the Gentiles as well as for those that were then present. In fact, the idea that Jesus came to offer any particular nation the promise of salvation apart from personal and individual obedience to the gospel is foreign to the nature of the gospel (and Jesus' teachings on the kingdom) itself! (Read the prophecy or Jeremiah 31:31-34/Hebrews 8:7-13.) Once again, if one continues to read the rest of the second chapter of Acts, he will find that over 3000 souls responded to Peter's message of salvation. Should we assume that these souls did not take Peter's words to apply to them individually?

In Acts 5:31, before the Council and the high priest, Peter and the apostles give their motivation for preaching the gospel. They explain to their listeners that they must obey God rather than men, And they continue, “He is the one whom God exalted to His right hand as a Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.”

The gospel was preached to the Jews first. This was God's plan. In fact, the apostles had been told that they would “begin” preaching “repentance for forgiveness of sins” from Jerusalem (Luke 24:47). The Jews (Israel) were being given an opportunity to respond and obey the gospel. Those who would obey (There were many that did. Acts 2:41-47; 4:3; 6:7) would be added to the kingdom (i.e. church). Those who rejected the gospel would be judged by the word of God, which they refused to believe. This would also be true of those that killed Stephen for rebuking their rejection of the gospel because of their predisposition to the Law Acts 6:8-7:60).

It seems to be the nature of man to all too often argue from the starting point of our own understanding or personal view. In other words, we argue from the conclusion that we have already reached and in order to see that our hearers (or readers) reach that same conclusion. We use Scripture to “prove our point.” And although many of us could be found guilty of this approach, it is certainly not in our best interest when attempting to understand God's message to mankind.

To set forth the objection at hand is to argue from a conclusion that the author has already reached. In order to suggest that the Ethiopian was saved before baptism, one should be expected to have scriptural evidence in the immediate context that indicates that this is true. There is no such evidence. The same is true in reference to the salvation of the Gentiles in Acts 10.

The accounts of the conversions in chapter eight of Acts are; 1) The Samaritans who received the good news, believed and were baptized (v. 12), 2), Simon who also believed and was baptized (v. 13) and the Ethiopian eunuch that we are told confessed his belief and was baptized. One must “read into” the text and once more, ignore the harmony of the New Testament in order to draw the conclusion that anyone was saved apart from baptism.

In Acts 9 we have the account of Saul. We have discussed this earlier (third objection) but will reiterate here that the scriptures imply nowhere that Paul was saved on the road to Damascus. Rather, he was told what he must do just as the hearers in Acts 2 were told what they must do. In fact, in Paul's recounting of his conversion we find in Acts 22, he says that Ananias told him to be baptized and “wash away [his] sins (22:16).” Surely no one would argue that Paul was saved before his sins were forgiven?

Again, in Acts 10 we have the conversion of the Gentiles recorded. This account is different only in that the Holy Spirit fell on the Gentiles before they were baptized. We have only two such accounts in scripture. The other is found in Acts 2 when the apostles received the special gift or baptism of the Holy Spirit. The apostles' gift of the Holy Spirit helped to bring to remembrance all that had been taught to them and gave them the ability to heal disease and to impart gifts of the Spirit to other Christians. In the case of the Gentiles this was a sign to Peter (and ultimately to all of the apostles and the church; Acts 15:7f) that God's invitation to obey the gospel was to them also (Acts 2:39; 10:47; 15:7-12). There is again no reference to the salvation of the Gentiles apart from water baptism. Peter instructed them to be immersed (10:47). (More on this in objections #6 and #7.)

Insisting that baptism is a work is like saying receiving a heart bypass operation is a work. Who does the “work”? In the case of the operation it is the doctor. The patient submits himself to the doctor's care and perhaps the doctor can help him or her to have a longer and healthier life. In the case of baptism God does the work. The repentant and obedient sinner submits himself to the authority of the Lord and the Lord gives him eternal life.

Another example is the popular analogy of the drowning man. We find a man in the lake trying desperately to stay afloat and at the same time yelling for help. We quickly determine that he cannot swim. Fortunately we have a long rope in the trunk of the car nearby and we are able to throw him one end of the rope, as we wrap the other end around the trunk of the tree. The man is able to take hold of the rope long enough for us to drag him to shore.

Colossians 2:12 says that we have “been buried with Him in baptism, in which [we] were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead” (Emphasis mine. NASU). We submit ourselves through obedient active faith unto God who does as He has promised. Suggesting that baptism is a work is inconsistent with sound reasoning. No one is saved but by the grace of God (Eph. 2:8-10). But that does not mean that the believer has no part in his own salvation.

If I tell you that I am going to give you a hundred dollar check and then a lay it on the table and tell you to pick it up, what do you have to do to actually possess the money? You have to pick it up, take it to the bank, sign it . . . . Does that mean that you have done a work resulting in earning the money? Hardly! It was a gift that I wanted you to have. But you have the choice whether you want it or not. If so, then you will take it. If not, you will leave it on the table. The argument that baptism is a work toward earning one's salvation is baseless.

Furthermore, submitting to baptism is an act of obedience to the instruction of our Lord and Master Jesus Christ. We obey by submitting and God adds us to the body of Christ through the gift of salvation (Acts 2:47). Even after we become Christians we are still expected to do things that will affect our eternal destiny. We have the gift of salvation, but it is a gift that we can lose if we do not remain faithful and obedient (Rev. 2:10; Jas. 1:12; Heb. 3:12). Should we conclude that we are earning our salvation through our obedience? Of course not! However we are commanded to serve our Lord as a member of the body. And we do that by obeying His instructions as given in the Word of God. So the question arises, “Should we consider our service to be works?” Why not! James did.

James 2:14-26, “What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and be filled," and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? 17 Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself. 18 But someone may well say, "You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works." 19 You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. 20 But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar? 22 You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected; 23 and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "AND ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS," and he was called the friend of God. 24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25 In the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? 26 For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.”

In his letter, James clearly says that faith without works is dead (i.e. useless). Is James suggesting that without works we might lose our reward? He not only suggests that but he asks two questions in verse fourteen that, if answered honestly, show that we certainly can lose our salvation. In verse twenty-four he says that a man is justified” (“rendered just or innocent”, VINE'S EXPOSITORY DICTIONARY OF BIBLICAL WORDS, Copyright © 1985 by Thomas Nelson Publishers. All rights reserved. Used by permission.) “by works and not by faith alone.” James makes the point clearly enough that we don't have to spend a great deal of time here.

John 6:27-29, “Do not work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you, for on Him the Father, God, has set His seal." 28 Therefore they said to Him, "What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?" 29 Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent” (NASU).

In verse 27 of this text, Jesus indicates that man IS to work for “the food which” endures to eternal life.” He says, “Do not work for the food which perishes, but [work] for the food which endures to eternal life.” The people in the crowd then ask, “What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?” The people understood the necessity of “doing something” (i.e. work) that would be considered “works of God.”

middle voice from NT:2041; to toil (as a task, occupation, etc.), (by implication) effect, be engaged in or with, etc” (1), or “to work, labor, do work” (2). In the phrase “works of God,” we find the noun form as follows, “toil (as an effort or occupation); by implication, an act” (1) or “an act, deed, thing done” (2).

Both uses of the word “work” in this passage indicate personal labor or action. Jesus is saying that we must do something in order to achieve eternal life. The phrase “works of God” as used in this context does not speak of the “works” that God does, but rather to the “works” that man performs in order to be approved by God. Word Pictures in the New Testament author Archibald Thomas Robertson clarifies the phrase “works of God;” in this way, “that we may go on working the works of God” (3). Vincent's Word Studies, “The question is from the legal standpoint, works being regarded as the condition of obtaining the living bread” (4).

Acts 2:37-39 reads, “Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brethren, what shall we do?" 38 Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 "For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.”

When the hearers heard what Peter had to say in his sermon about Jesus, that God had “made Him both Lord and Christ,” “this Jesus” that they had crucified, they were “pierced to the heart” (Acts 2:14-36). The hearers were convicted of the sin that they had committed in putting to death the very One that had died for their sins. Their obedient faith led them to want to act upon that conviction (John 16:7-10) and ask the question we find in Acts 2:37. The answer that is given is a direct and specific answer to the question, “What shall we do?” Peter, in answer to their question, and in remembrance of all that Christ had taught him (John 14:26), replies unambiguously with the words as they are found in verse 38 (above). In fact, as he continues (verse 39) Peter tells them that this promise (as a result of repentance and baptism) of the forgiveness of sins and indwelling gift of the Holy Spirit is the same promise that is for their children and “those who are far off” (Gentiles). In light of all of this information, shouldn't a member of the church of the Lord Jesus Christ be interested and even excited about such a great promise? Shouldn't we desire to know what “we must do”? And wouldn't the context of the beginning of the church call for one to place considerable emphasis upon Peter's answer to the crowd? Yes, Acts 2:38-39 are and will continue to be referenced to show God's will concerning baptism.

In response to the second part of the above objection, I will again call attention to the fact that this accusation is made without foundation. As we have already shown, Acts 2:38 is a key passage of scripture. However, it is not to be understood without a sincere study of the complete context of the Bible, God's plan and other scriptures that deal with the subject of baptism and salvation. There are numerous passages that harmonize with a literal understanding of Acts 2:38.

In Acts 9, we read of Saul's famous trip to Damascus. In this account, we see that Paul was stopped by an exceedingly bright light and heard the voice of the Lord, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?” It is also noted that Jesus revealed Himself to Saul as the Lord. Then Jesus told Saul to “enter the city, and it will be told you what you must do” (9:6). We should note that there is no reference whatsoever to Saul having been saved at this point. In fact, Jesus told him to go into Damascus and he would be told what [he] “must do.” Later, Ananias came to him as he had been instructed and carried out the will of the Lord. In Acts 9:10-19 we read that Ananias laid his hands upon Saul so that through him (Ananias) God could heal Saul of his blindness and give him the Holy Spirit (Note that no one in the New Testament church received the Holy Spirit apart from baptism except the apostles in Acts 2 and here, and the Gentiles in a miraculous way showing Peter and the rest of the apostles that they had been accepted by God.) In Acts 22:12-16 we have another reference to this series of events. In this passage, Ananias tells Saul to “Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name” (Acts 22:16). Ananias clearly connects baptism with cleansing from sin.

We may also note from the above scripture that by submitting to the Lord's instruction as given through Ananias, Saul is said to be “calling upon the name of the Lord.” Many suggest that by insisting that baptism is necessary for the forgiveness of sins, one denies the instructions of passages such as Acts 2:21; Romans 10:12-14 and 1 Corinthians 1:2 which speak of “calling upon the name” of Jesus. However, here in Acts 22:16, Saul is doing that very thing by being baptized through obedient faith as he submits to the Lord's will!

Romans 6:3-7, “ Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6 knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; 7 for he who has died is freed from sin.” (Also see Col. 2:12-15)

How does this text relate to our discussion? When does Paul say that the believer receives “newness of life”? It is after we have been baptized “into Christ.” Paul shows the relationship between Christ's burial and resurrection, and the believer's burial through baptism and resurrection to a new life as he is raised out of the waters of baptism. Observe that there is no newness of life until baptism has taken place. (Also note: Neither is the Holy Spirit promised to be given until baptism has taken place. As one reads through the book of Romans, in chapter eight Paul will deal with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit that the members of Christ possess because they obeyed their Lord in faith, repentance and baptism. We will deal more with this later.)

In John 3:2-7 Nicodemus approaches Jesus with these words, “Rabbi, we know that You have come from God as a teacher; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him." 3 Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." 4 Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?" 5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 "Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'”

Jesus tells Nicodemus that no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again. A man cannot see heaven unless he is born of the water and the Spirit. As we read these words in harmony with the rest of scripture, we understand that Jesus was speaking of baptism and the gift of the Holy Spirit. One must be “born of the water.” This is when the new birth takes place. This is when a believer has his or her sins washed away and possesses “newness of life” (Rom. 6:5).

Again, we find this truth in Galatians 3:26-29, “For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise” (NASU).

2 Corinthians 5:17 informs the reader, “Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come” (Emphasis mine.). “All things are new” for the believer that is “in Christ.” And we are “in Christ” if we have repented and been baptized through faith in the Lord (Gal. 3:27). It is then that we gain “newness of life.” (I realize that I am being somewhat redundant, but I want to be sure that the reader understands the harmony of these texts.) It is during our baptism that we have “forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38),” Have our sins “washed away (Acts 22:16),” are “born again (John 3:3-5),” are “made alive” (Colossians 2:13), become a “new creature” (2 Cor. 5:17) and become “saved” (1 Peter 3:21). That is the teaching of the scriptures that we can see concerning on the subject of baptism and God's plan of salvation!

In the conversion accounts recorded in the book of Acts (the early inspired history of the church) we find perfect consistency in all of the conversions. (After all, the Bible is always consistent.) Faith, repentance, confession and baptism are all shown to be a part of the conversion process. In the ten conversions that are recorded, we have faith (or belief) mentioned seven times, repentance twice, confession once and baptism mentioned in every account except the account recorded in Acts 17 (See verse 34.). Though we do not have the time or space to deal fully with each of these texts, one can see that the sometimes unmentioned elements of conversion are implied by both the biblical text and the agreement with the entirety of Scripture. Does the believer have reason to see the necessity of baptism for salvation? How can one draw any other conclusion from the evidence? Is there more evidence than a mere consideration of Acts 2:38? Certainly!

Acts 2:38, “Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (“All Scripture is taken from the New American Standard Bible, © The Lockman Foundation 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977. Used with permission.” Unless otherwise noted.)

“I have heard the example, that when someone says to “Take two aspirin for your headache,” it's clear that he doesn't mean to “take two aspirin in order to get your headache,” but instead he means “take two aspirin because you already have a headache.” It's just like Acts 2:38 doesn't teach that baptism is “for” the forgiveness of sins, but “because” of the forgiveness of sins. In other words, you already have the forgiveness of sins. In fact, the Greek word “eis” (found in Acts 2:38) is translated “because” elsewhere.”

First, we must point out that the above example misrepresents the scripture. Comparing baptism with a headache is like comparing goodness with race or gender. This is not even an acceptable analogy. The doctor in the example is of course saying to take two aspirin “because” of your headache. But he is talking about something that his patient already possesses. So in order for the example to be pertinent to the discussion of baptism, one must begin with the assumption that Peter is speaking (Acts 2:38) to people that already possess salvation. And while that may actually be the point of this objection, this simply is not the case, as we will soon see. (Thought: When were these hearers saved? Was it immediately upon or during their asking of the question, “What shall we do?”)

Secondly, The Greek word “eis” can be translated both “for” and “because.” But in the New Testament it is the context that decides how the word is translated. Incidentally, almost every single translator (most who do not even believe in the necessity of baptism for salvation) renders the word “for” (in order to get or receive) in Acts 2:38.

If we turn to the Gospel of Mark (1:4) we read, “John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness preaching a baptism of repentance for [eis] the forgiveness of sins.” Would one object and say, “Forgiveness of sins comes before repentance, so this repentance is “because” of the forgiveness of sins”? One had might as well put the forgiveness of sins before faith if he is to draw such a conclusion. Repentance comes as a result of our being convicted by our faith and leads an obedient believer to submit to scriptural baptism.

Another example is found in Acts 11:29 where we read, “And in the proportion that any of the disciples had means, each of them determined to send a contribution for the relief of the brethren living in Judea.” Should the word “for” (eis) be translated “because” in this verse? One might argue that the relief was sent because they wanted the brethren to receive their contribution. However, that is to rewrite the text. They were sending a contribution “for” the relief of the brethren. Does this mean that they were sending a contribution “because” of the relief of the brethren? Did the brethren already have relief before they received the contribution? No.

“a primary preposition; to or into (indicating the point reached or entered), of place, time, or (figuratively) purpose (result, etc.); also in adverbial phrases.” (New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

“into, to, toward, for, among. A. Properly, I. of place, after verbs of going, coming, sailing, flying, falling, living, leading, carrying, throwing, sending, etc. of a place entered, or of entrance into a place, into. . . through a time Heb 7:32. Hence, of the time in which a thing is done; . . .where one thing is said to be changed into another, or to be separated into parts, or where several persons or things are said to be collected or combined into one, etc.: Phil 1:192. . . . it denotes motion to something, after verbs of going, coming, leading, calling, etc., Matt 22:32. . . .indicating purpose, Rom 15:7 to followed by an infinitive, . . . to with the infinitive has the force of a separate telic (purposive) clause Luke 20:20 d. the end by which a thing is completed, i. e. the result or effect: Acts 10:4” (Thayer's Greek Lexicon, Electronic Database. Copyright © 2000, 2003, 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved)

“eis; a prim. prep.; to or into (indicating the point reached or entered, of place, time, fig. purpose, result):-about (1), against (18), among (10), become *(5), before (2), before *(1), benefit (1), bestowed (1), beyond (1), beyond *(2), bring about (1), bring *(1), continually *(1), eliminated *(2), end (2), even (1), ever *(2), forever *(1), forward *(3), leading (2), leads (1), mine *(1), never *(1), next *(1), onto (2), over (1), perpetually *(1), reference (2), regard (3), relation (1), respect (2), result (3), resulted (2), resulting (10), sake (1), so (34), throughout (3), toward (23), until (4), view (3), why *(4).” (NAS Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries, Edition : Second, Copyright (c) 1981, 1998 by The Lockman Foundation. A Corporation Not for Profit. La Habra, California. All Rights Reserved. International Copyright Secured. Electronic Edition STEP Files Copyright © 1998, Parsons Technology, Inc.)

“Spoken of a result, effect, consequence, marking that which any person or thing inclines toward or becomes (Matt. 13:30, “bind them in bundles”; 27:51, “split in parts” [a.t.]; John 17:23; Acts 2:20; 10:4, “your prayers went up unto remembrance” [a.t.]; Rom. 10:10, “with the heart man believeth unto righteousness”; (The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament, Edition : First, Copyright : © 1992 By AMG International, Inc. Revised edition, 1993. All rights reserved. Electronic Edition STEP Files Copyright © 2005, QuickVerse. All rights reserved.)

Romans 10:10 says, “for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.” The word translated “resulting” here (“unto” in the KJV) is “eis” and means “toward” or “for the purpose of.” Would anyone argue that righteousness comes before believing (or salvation before confession) as some argue that salvation comes before baptism in Acts 2:38? Does believing come “because” of righteousness that we already possess? Hardly! The scriptures plainly teach that righteousness is the result of faith, not the other way around!

The word eis can be translated “because”, “into”, “unto,” “resulting,” or even in other ways. While those who support baptism “for” the remission of sins should not demand that the exclusive meaning of “eis” be “for” or “in order to receive,” Neither should those that argue against baptism as a requirement for the forgiveness of sins argue that “eis” always means “because.” The meaning of the word is determined by the context of a passage and the harmony of scripture.

Therefore, for one to demand that the word “eis” in Acts 2:38 be translated “because”, he must first find reason to do so based upon the aforementioned grounds, not simply because of the way that it is translated in some other passages of scripture. In order to understand Acts 2:38 rightly, we must look at other biblical texts in an attempt to be sure that we do not understand this passage in a way that would conflict with other scripture. The Bible never contradicts itself. So in order to understand this verse (or any other verse) correctly we must study other verses that deal with baptism as it relates to salvation (i.e. the forgiveness of sins). Or we might say it this way; “In order to understand any biblical subject, we must examine ALL that the Bible has to say about that subject.” This is no less true with the subject of baptism.

This is a false and undue accusation. I have never met a member of the Church of Christ that believes in so-called water regeneration. We would all agree that the water does not save anyone. It is our obedience in submitting to the will of our Lord through baptism that brings us to receive salvation.

1 Peter 3:21-23 tells us, “Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you - not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience - through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.” This passage of scripture plainly says that “baptism . . . saves . . .” But the text also shows that it IS NOT the water or its physical cleansing abilities that save us, but rather our appeal to God through obedient baptism. Just as Noah and his family were saved by God through obedient faith (Heb. 11:7) and “through water” (1 Pet. 3:20), so also we are saved “through water” when we are baptized in faithful obedience to our Lord. Righteousness and justification come as a gift from God (Rom. 3:21f) through faith, and that through saving baptism.