Acts 2:38--Baptism Essential to Salvation?

            Acts 2:38 reads, “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”  This verse is the favorite proof-text for many who defend salvation by baptism.  It is usually argued that Peter affirms that one must repent, and then be baptized, in order to receive (“for”) the remission of sins, after which one receives the Holy Spirit.[i]  The dogmatic crux on which the argument turns is the assertion that baptism is “for” the remission of sins in the sense that it is administered “in order to receive” forgiveness.[ii]  Careful study will demonstrate that Peter does not assert baptism is administered in order to receive forgiveness in Acts 2:38, nor is such a view of the verse consistent with the apostle’s teaching elsewhere in the book of Acts.

            While the baptismal regenerationist insists that “for” in Acts 2:38 means “in order to” receive remission of sins, those who give credence to the overwhelming testimony of Scripture in general to justification by faith alone usually[iii] contend that the “for” signifies “with respect to” or “on account of” remission of sins already received.  A poster with a picture of a criminal affirming that he is “wanted for robbery” asserts that he is wanted “on account of” a robbery already committed, not (hopefully!) “in order to” commit another robbery.  The English of Acts 2:38 is consistent with the view that Peter affirmed that the crowds at Jerusalem needed to repent, and then be baptized “on account of” the remission of sins that they received when they repented, rather than repenting, and then being baptized “in order to obtain” the remission of sins.

            An examination of the Greek text underlying Acts 2:38 similarly harmonizes with justification by faith.  The word translated “for” is the Greek preposition eis.  The second most common preposition in the New Testament, it appears 1,767[iv] times.  As one might expect with a word this common, eis has a great variety of meanings in different contexts—as does the English word “for.”[v]  The preposition eis can signify “on account of” or “with respect to,” as it does, for example, in Matthew 12:41 and 10:41-42 (3 times):

The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas [Greek, eis, “on account of” the preaching of Jonah, not “in order to obtain” the preaching of Jonah]; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here. (Matthew 12:41)

41 He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet [Greek eis, “on account of” or “with respect to” the name (or character) of a prophet—hardly “in order to obtain” the name of a prophet] shall receive a prophet’s reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in [Greek eis, “on account of” or “with respect to”] the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man’s reward. 42 And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in [Greek eis, “on account of” or “with respect to”] the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward. (Matthew 10:41-42)

Among the many uses of the word eis, the meaning “on account of”[vi] or “with respect to” is clearly found in Scripture.  This sense of eis represents Acts 2:38 as “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ on account of the remission of sins [received at the time of repentance].”  The baptismal regenerationist concludes too much when he affirms that Acts 2:38 proves his doctrine that baptism is administered “in order to obtain”[vii] forgiveness.  The verse can easily convey a meaning perfectly harmonious with justification by faith before baptism.[viii] 

            To determine more exactly the significance of eis in Acts 2:38 requires consideration of the verses where the preposition appears in connection with baptism.  While the word can signify “on account of” and “with respect to” in reference to other objects, if, in verses that associate eis and baptism, the sense is clearly “in order to” obtain, the baptismal regenerationist argument in Acts 2:38 might carry some weight. However, no such connection is found in the sixteen verses that associate baptism and eis in the New Testament.[ix]  The clear sense of the word in many of these verses is “on account of” or “with respect to.”  Not one of the uses must signify “in order to” obtain; indeed, such an idea is impossible in a number of passages.[x]  For example, John the Baptist preached, “I indeed baptize you with water unto [eis] repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire” (Matthew 3:11).  Here it is obvious that John baptized people “on account of” their prior repentance; he certainly did not wrestle unrepentant sinners into the water “in order to” get them to repent![xi]  The affirmation that Acts 2:38 proves that baptism is “in order to” obtain the remission of sins does not take into account the use of eis in connection with baptism in the rest of the New Testament.

            Indeed, John’s preaching of a baptism on account of (eis) repentance (Matthew 3:11), a baptism that is the result of repentance (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3; Acts 13:24; 19:4),[xii] controls a proper understanding of Acts 2:38.  John had “preached . . . the baptism of repentance [the baptism that is the result of repentance] to all the people of Israel” (Acts 13:24), and his message of baptism on account of repentance had filled “all the land of Judea . . . of Jerusalem . . . [and] all the country about Jordan . . . [so that] all men [came] to him” (Matthew 3:5; Mark 1:5; Luke 3:3; John 3:26).  Peter and the other apostles had been baptized by John (Acts 1:22).  When Peter preached,  “[Y]e men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem . . . [r]epent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for/on account of (eis) the remission of sins” (Acts 2:14, 38), his Pentecostal message of baptism on account of the remission of sins was one with which both the apostle and his audience were familiar from the preaching of John the Baptist.  The message of John, baptism on account of repentance (Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:4), was what Peter preached in Acts 2:38.  Peter’s Pentecostal sermon was no more “Repent, and be baptized in order to obtain the remission of sins” than John’s message was “I indeed baptize you with water in order to get you to repent.”  The context and historical setting of Acts 2:38 within the framework of the baptism of John do not merely make it possible that Peter’s message was baptism on account of the remission of sins, but clearly establish this sense of the command.

            The grammatical structure of Acts 2:38 connects the receipt of the Holy Spirit (and thus the new birth “of the Spirit” (John 3:5-8) and its associated receipt of eternal life) with repentance, not baptism.  The section of the verse in question could be diagrammed as follows:

Repent (2nd person plural aorist imperative)

            be baptized (3rd person singular aorist imperative)

                        every one (nominative singular adjective)

                                    in (epi) the name of Jesus Christ

                                    for (eis) the remission of sins

            ye shall receive (2nd person future indicative) . . . the Holy Ghost

Both the command to repent and the promised receipt of the Holy Spirit are in the second person (i. e, “Repent [ye]” and “ye shall receive”).  The command to be baptized is in the third person singular, as is the adjective “every one” (hekastos).  Peter commands the whole crowd to repent and promises those who do the gift of the Holy Ghost (cf. Acts 10:47; 15:8).[xiii]   The call to baptism was only for the “every one of you”[xiv] that had already repented, received the Holy Ghost, and become the children of God.  The “be baptized every one of you” section of the verse is parenthetical to the command to repent and its associated promise of the Spirit.  Parenthetical statements, including those parallel in structure to Acts 2:38, are found throughout Scripture.[xv]  That is, the grammar of Acts 2:38 requires the connection “Repent ye, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost,” not “Be each one baptized, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”  The connection in Acts 2:38 between the receipt of the Holy Spirit and repentance, rather than baptism, overthrows the assertions of baptismal regenerations on the verse.

            Peter also clearly affirmed elsewhere in Acts that at the moment of repentant faith one receives the Spirit and eternal life. As taught in all the rest of the New Testament, Peter believed that one “receive[s] the promise of the Spirit through faith” (Galatians 3:14), not by baptism. In Acts 10:34-48, just as on the day of Pentecost (11:15, 17), eternal life, and the gift of the Holy Spirit, was received at the moment of repentant faith (11:18; 10:43-48) and before baptism.  Peter explicitly stated that God “purif[ied] [the] hearts by faith” (Acts 15:9) of those given eternal life in Acts 2 and 10, when they “heard the word of the gospel, and believe[d]” (15:7, cf. v. 11), at which time they received the Holy Spirit (15:7-9).  Furthermore, in the rest of the book of Acts, Peter proclaimed justification by repentant faith alone.  He preached, “Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out” (Acts 3:19).  He associated “repentance . . . and forgiveness of sins” (Acts 5:31).  He commanded men to “repent . . . and . . . be forgiven” (Acts 8:22).  In Acts 10:43, he preached that “through [Christ’s] name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.”  If Peter taught forgiveness by baptism in Acts 2:38, why did he teach justification by repentant faith, as the other apostles did (Acts 13:39; 16:31), in all the rest of Acts?  Did he change his mind in Acts 10-11 and 15, and, twice, inform the very church at Jerusalem that included numerous converts from his sermon in Acts 2 that they were saved by faith, not by baptism?  Did the entire Jerusalem church agree with Peter’s new teaching and “glorify God” (11:18) for it, including those that were supposedly baptized in order to receive the remission of sins on that first Pentecost?  The allegation that Acts 2:38 conditions forgiveness of sins on baptism ignores the clear statements of Peter about what happened on that day, his preaching of the gospel everywhere else in the book, and the numerous affirmations of salvation by repentant faith alone by others in Acts.

            Acts 2:38 does not by any means prove that one must be baptized in order to receive the forgiveness of sins.  This assertion not only exceeds the English of the verse, it ignores the variety of usage of the Greek preposition eis in the New Testament, the Biblical uses of eis associated with baptism, the grammatical structure of Acts 2:38, the commentary of Peter upon the events of Acts 2, the teachings of Peter elsewhere in Acts, and the teachings of every other preacher of the gospel in the book and in the rest of Scripture.

This is part of an entire study that can be accessed here, or purchased for $0.99 for Kindle here.

TDR

---

[1]           Some baptismal regenerationists affirm that the Holy Spirit is received immediately after baptism. Others add requirements not found in Acts 2:38 by any stretch of the imagination; for example, Oneness Pentecostalism makes speaking in tongues after baptism a necessary sign of the receipt of the Spirit (see “Salvation, the Spirit, and Tongues,” pgs. 197-213, Oneness Pentecostals & The Trinity, Gregory A. Boyd, Grand Rapids, MI:  Baker Books, 1992).  Roman Catholicism teaches that “the effect of the sacrament of Confirmation [which generally takes place years after infant baptism] is the full outpouring of the Holy Spirit as once granted to the apostles on the day of Pentecost,” so that what Peter preached in Acts 2:38 is received only after a bishop “anoint[s] the forehead of the baptized with sacred chrism . . . together with the laying on of the minister’s hand and the words . . . ‘Be sealed with the Gift of the Holy Spirit’” (sections #1302, 1320, pgs. 330, 333, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Mahweh, NJ: Paulist Press, 1994).  Apparently Peter’s promise “ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost” to his audience upon complying with Acts 2:38 would have been better stated as “ye shall only receive the gift of the Holy Ghost if, continuing faithful for some time after baptism, ye speak in tongues/get oil put on your forehead by a properly ordained bishop [or priest if it is an extreme emergency and you may die without the seal of the Holy Spirit] and submit to other ritualistic requirements.”

[1]           It is noteworthy that most baptismal regenerationists believe that baptism only forgives past sins, not all sin, but Peter never makes this qualification in Acts 2:38.  Would not “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ in order to receive the forgiveness of past sins,” or “in order to receive the forgiveness of some sins,” have been more appropriate? 

[1]                 Some who reject baptismal regeneration hold other views on the verse.  For Acts 2:38 to function as a proof-text for advocates of forgiveness by baptism, they must prove the text teaches the ordinance is administed “in order to receive” remission of sins.  Opponents of baptismal salvation do not need to prove anything from Acts 2:38.  They simply must show that it can reasonably mean something other than that baptism is a prerequisite to forgiveness.  Having accomplished this, the verse can no longer be used as a proof-text to (attempt) to negate the immense numbers of verses that clearly promise eternal life to all believers.

[1]                 This statistic was obtained by a search of the Greek Textus Receptus using Accordance Bible software.  The same figure is given on pg. 357 of Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Daniel Wallace (Grand Rapids, MI:  Zondervan, 1996).

[1]                 In the best (and the standard) New Testament lexicon, BDAG, (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, (BDAG), 3rd ed., rev. & ed. Frederick William Danker, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2000), the preposition eis has ten listed main definitions, with twenty-nine subheadings classifying different senses under the main headings.

[1]                 “Eis . . . [can be] use[d] . . . causally [as] ‘on account of,’ . . . Matthew 12:41. . . . [In] Matthew 10:41 . . . the sense here called for is a causal one, for which the preposition eis is suitable, just as the Semitic equivalent le admits not only a final but also a causal sense” (para. 98, 106, Biblical Greek Illustrated by Examples, Maximilian Zerwick.  Eng. ed. Joseph Smith.  Rome:  Scripta Pontificii Instituti Biblici, 1963).  Eis can mean “because of” (pg. 103, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, H. E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1957).  Concerning “eis . . . some contexts would certainly suit a causal sense: Matthew 3:11, because of repentance . . . 10:41; 12:41=Luke 11:32 metenoesan eis to kerugma Iona: they repented because of the preaching of Jonah . . . Acts 2:38 be baptized eis aphesin ton hamartion, on the basis of . . . Acts 7:53; Romans 4:20, on account of the promises of God, Abraham did not waver . . . Romans 11:32 God has imprisoned all because of disobedience . . . Titus 3:14, to maintain good works, because of the compelling need of them; Hebrews 12:7 [v. l.], you are enduring because of discipline . . . 1 John 5:10” (pgs. 266-267, 18:4:1c, Moulton, J. H. A Grammar of New Testament Greek. 4 vols. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1908-76. Vol. 3 (1963): Syntax, by Nigel Turner).  See J. R. Mantey, “The Causal Use of Eis in the New Testament,” Journal of Biblical Literature 70 (1951) pgs. 45-48, and “On Causal Eis Again,” Journal of Biblical Literature 70 (1951) pgs. 309-311.  In addition to quoting Matthew 3:11; 12:41; Acts 2:38, and other inspired texts as examples of a causal (“because of”) use of eis in the New Testament, Mantey provides evidence from uninspired Greek, such as Genesis 4:23 (LXX):  Andra apekteina eis trauma emoi kai neaniskon eis molopa emoi, “I killed a man for [on account of] wounding me, and a young man for [on account of] striking me.”  Mantey also mentions contemporary secular Greek examples such as Lucian, The Dead Come to Life, Vol. III, 12: ta hremata panu hetairika, kai epainoumene hupo ton heraston eis kallos echaire, “Her words are always those of a courtesan, and she delighted in being praised by her lovers for [because of] her beauty.”  B. H. Carroll provides evidence “from Aristophanes: ‘To jeer at a man eis his rags’ . . . [f]rom Plato . . . ‘To differ from one eis virtue.’ . . . [He concludes,] the meaning of eis in Acts 2:38 is . . . with reference to remission of sins. I am willing to risk my scholarship on that” (pgs. 81-82, An Interpretation of the English Bible, sec. 8, “The Theory of Baptismal Regeneration (concluded): Acts 2:38,” elec. acc. AGES Digital Software Library vol. 11, B. H. Carroll Collection. Rio, WI: 2006).  Indeed, the “illustrations of . . . [the usage of eis as] because of . . . are numerous in the N. T. and the Koiné [Greek outside of the Bible] generally” (Word Pictures in the New Testament, A. T. Robertson, Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1960, note on Acts 2:38). 

[1]           The preposition eis can signify “to” and convey a meaning of “in order to” (e. g., Colossians 1:29), although this usage is hardly the predominant or majority one.  However, it is not enough for the baptismal regenerationist to show that the word may signify “in order to” in a few of its 1,767 appearances.  He must prove that it can signify nothing other than “in order to” in Acts 2:38.  If he does not prove this sense is required in the verse, it does not establish his position.

[1]                 Some baptismal regenerationists attempt to support their view that eis aphesin hamartion in Acts 2:38 (“for/on account of the remission of sins”) means “in order to obtain” the remission of sins by cross-referencing Matthew 26:28, which states that Christ shed His blood eis aphesin hamartion.  However, this comparison of texts overlooks a number of facts.  The shedding of blood by Christ, not our baptism, is in view in Matthew’s gospel.  There are two other instances (aside from Acts 2:38 and Matthew 26:28) where the eis aphesin hamartion construction appears in the New Testament—Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3.  In both of these instances, the phrase is used in connection with baptism (unlike in Matthew 26:28) and signifies “on account of the remission of sins.”  To use Matthew 26:28’s eis aphesin hamartion to support the idea of baptism “in order to” obtain remission of sins in Acts 2:38, while ignoring the sense of Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3, where the word baptism is actually used with the phrase, is faulty exegesis.  Furthermore, “remission of sins,” aphesin hamartion, is promised elsewhere in Scripture to all who believe.  Acts 10:43 states, “To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins (aphesin hamartion).”  Acts 26:18 likewise reads, “[T]hey may receive forgiveness of sins (aphesin hamartion) and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.”

[1]           It is worth mentioning that, although the KJV translates eis forty-eight different ways, it never renders the preposition as “in order to.”  Indeed, even Alexander Campbell’s own Bible version, the Living Oracles, only manages to render eis as “in order to” in eleven out of its 1,767 appearances—and this eleven includes a number of verses with an eis + to + infinitive construction entirely unlike Acts 2:38.  Nevertheless, Campbell did remember to make Acts 2:38 one of the 0.6% of references in his own Bible version where eis is rendered “in order to.”

[1]                 In addition to the very obvious Matthew 3:11, it is hard to see how “in order to” can fit many other Biblical texts.  Is Matthew 28:19 “in order to” obtain the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost?  (Compare eis used with baptism and “name” in Acts 8:16; 19:5.)  Is Mark 1:9 “in order to” obtain the Jordan river? Is Acts 19:3 “in order to” obtain John’s baptism?  Is 1 Corinthians 1:13 (also 1:15) “in order to” obtain the name of Paul?  Is 1 Corinthians 10:2 “in order to obtain” Moses?  The only remaining verses containing eis and baptism can at least as easily signify “with respect to,” “on account of,” or one of the other senses of eis.  Not one verse must signify “in order to” obtain (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3; Acts 2:38; Romans 6:3, 4; 1 Corinthians 12:13; Galatians 3:27).

[1]                 Further evidence that John’s baptism was not “in order to” the forgiveness of sins comes from the lack of Pharisaical challenge to his ministry on that account (cf. Matthew 3:7).  Christ did claim the power to forgive sin (although He did not baptize, John 4:2—note that the Lord Jesus did “make” disciples before having them baptized, evidencing that one is not made a disciple by baptism, but is one previous to it), and the Jewish religious leaders contended with Him on that ground (Matthew 9:3; Mark 2:7; Luke 5:21; 7:49).  They did not make a similar challenge to John because his baptism was not a means for the receipt of forgiveness.  It was an evidence that pardon had already been received.

            Josephus, the first century Jewish historian, when describing John’s baptism, stated that it was performed on account of already forgiven sin, not in order to obtain forgiveness. “John, who was called the Baptist . . . was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away of some sins, but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness” (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 18:5:2:117).  Similarly Eusebius, the first known writer in Christiandom to compose a church history, slightly altered the statements of Josephus but agreeed with his conclusions, writing:  “John who was called the Baptist . . . said that baptism would prove acceptable . . . only in those who used it not to escape from any sins but for bodily purity, on condition that the soul also had been previously cleansed thoroughly by righteousness” (Ecclesiastical History, I. XI:5, cited in Loeb Classical Library ed., trans. Kirsopp Lake, pg. 81).  While neither the writings of Josephus nor of Eusebius are inspired Scripture, of course, if John publicly proclaimed that his baptism was a prerequisite to forgiveness, would not the ancient historical record have indicated, rather than contradicted, this view?

[1]                 John’s “baptism of repentance for (eis) the remission of sins” (Mark 1:4, Luke 3:3) was not one administered “in order to” obtain remission by baptism but “on account of” remission already received by repentance and faith in the Savior (Acts 19:4-5).  The genitive construction “baptism of repentance” (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3; Acts 13:24; 19:4) is a result/reason construction, meaning “baptism [result] on account of repentance [reason],” similar to the phrases “work [result] of faith [reason], labour [result] of love [reason], and patience [result] of hope [reason]” (1 Thessalonians 1:3; cf. 2 Thessalonians 1:11; Hebrews 6:10) or “obedience [result] of faith [reason]” (Romans 16:26).  (Compare the discussion of the genitive of production/producer on pgs. 104-106 of Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, and the genitive of source or origin analyzed on pgs. 109-110, which Wallace says “stresses cause,” that is, reason.  The connection between production/producer and reason/result can be seen, not only in the texts above, but in verses such as 1 Peter 1:3, “sanctification of the Spirit” or Galatians 3:13, “curse of the law”; cf. also Galatians 5:22; 2 Corinthians 11:26.  Note, outside the NT, texts such as 1 Clement 50:5, “harmony of love,” or Amos 6:12; Sirach 45:11 (LXX); or Philo, Allegorical Interpretation 2:68.)  Baptism is one of the “works meet for repentance” (Matthew 3:8; Acts 26:20) that follows receiving the gospel.  The record of John preaching “I indeed baptize you with water unto (eis) repentance” (Matthew 3:11) is simply a statement explaining the summary phrase that John preached a “baptism of repentance for (eis, on account of) the remission of sins” (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3).  Since the phrase “a baptism of repentance” is a result/reason genitive construction indicating that baptism is a result of repentance, Matthew 3:11 means that John baptized with water “on account of” or “as a result of” repentance, defining eis in the text as “on account of/because of” repentance.  One notes further that even apart from this strong syntactical evidence from related passages, the natural and obvious sense of Matthew 3:11 is eis in the sense of “on account of” in any case.

[1]                 Peter’s use of kathos kai, “even as,” in Acts 10:47; 15:8 provides further support for the fact that the Holy Spirit was received before baptism in Acts 2:38.  Peter explains that in the same way that the Holy Spirit was given before baptism in the account of Acts 10:43-48, the Jews who responded to the gospel in Acts 2:38 likewise received the Spirit before baptism.  Compare the other uses of kathos kai in the New Testament (Luke 6:36; 11:1; 24:24; Acts 2:22; 10:47; 15:8; Romans 1:13; 15:7; 1 Corinthians 10:6, 9–10, 33–11:1; 13:12; 14:34; 2 Corinthians 1:14; 11:12; Galatians 5:21; Ephesians 4:4, 17, 32; 5:2, 25, 29; Colossians 1:6–7; 3:13; 1 Thessalonians 2:14; 3:4; 4:6, 13; 5:11; 2 Thessalonians 3:1; Hebrews 5:6; 2 Peter 1:14; 3:15).

While the fact that Peter preached the receipt of the Spirit upon repentance, and before baptism, in Acts 2:38; 10:47 & 15:8 refutes all versions of baptismal regeneration, it is especially worthy of note as a response to the Oneness Pentecostal doctrine that people do not receive the Holy Spirit until after they have received anti-Trinitarian Oneness baptism and spoken in tongues.  Acts 2:38 promises the Spirit before baptism, and far before the time advocated by Oneness doctrine.  The Bible also teaches the doctrine of the Trinity, that the one and only God has existed from eternity in three distinct Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (1 John 5:7; Matthew 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14; John 1:1-4).  Furthermore, even before the gift of tongues, the miraculous ability to speak in known foreign languages, ceased (1 Corinthians 13:8; cf. “1 Corinthians 13:8-13 and the Cessation of Miraculous Gifts,” R. Bruce Compton. Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 9 (2004) 97-144), it was never for all believers (1 Corinthians 12:30), and certainly was not a prerequisite to justification.  Additionally, in Acts 19:2 the aorist participle “believed” (pisteusantes) is dependent upon the aorist verb “received” (elabete), and the verse indicates (consider also the use of ei in the question) that Paul assumed that the Holy Spirit was received instantaneously upon believing (that is, with temporal simultaneity but logical subsequence to faith), not at some later period when some sort of second blessing took place.  “[W]hen the aorist participle is related to an aorist main verb, the participle will often be contemporaneous (or simultaneous) to the action of the main verb” (pg. 624, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Daniel Wallace).  Paul’s question to these professed disciples assumed the reality of an immediate receipt of the Spirit at the moment of faith.  “[In Acts 19:2] there is no question about what happened after believing; but the question rightly relates to what occurred when they believed. . . . [The verse could be rendered] rightly, ‘Did ye receive the Holy Ghost when ye believed?’” (Word Studies in the New Testament, Marvin Vincent, vol. 1, note on Acts 19:2, elec. acc. in AGES Digital Software Library, Classic Commentary collection).  The post-believing coming of the Spirit in miraculous power recorded in Acts 19:6 employs a different Greek word (erchomai) than that generally used for the simple receipt of the Spirit as in verse 2 (lambano).  The word in verse 2, when employed after the historical event of Spirit baptism ceased by Acts 19, always refers to the receipt of the Spirit at the moment of faith.  This use is universal in the epistles (Romans 8:15; 1 Corinthians 2:12; 2 Corinthians 11:4; Galatians 3:2, 14, cf. the prediction in John 7:39).  In contrast, the word in Acts 19:6 is never used in the New Testament of the believer’s receipt of the Spirit at the moment of faith and regeneration.

            The Oneness Pentecostal idea that “the one name of Matthew 28:19 is Jesus, for Jesus is the name of the Father . . . the Son . . . and the Holy Ghost . . . the name of Jesus was orally uttered as part of the baptismal formula . . . the name Jesus was orally invoked at baptism” (The Oneness of God, David K. Bernard.  Hazelwood, MO: Word Aflame Press, 1995, Chapter 6, “Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,” elec. acc.) is entirely erroneous and heretical, and it cannot be sustained Scripturally.  If one must, as Oneness Pentecostalism affirms, employ the correct words at the time of baptism or salvation is impossible, which words should be employed?  Those of Acts 2:38, “in [epi] the name of Jesus Christ”; those of Acts 8:16 and 19:5, “in [eis] the name of the Lord Jesus”; or those of Acts 10:48, “in [en] the name of the Lord”?  Since there are three different groups of words, with three different prepositions employed (epi, eis, and en), and three different endings (“Jesus Christ,” “Lord Jesus,” “Lord,”—note that the last does not even have the name “Jesus” at all), which set constitutes the magic words without which salvation is impossible?  Would it also not be very unfortunate that, whichever of the three sets of words one determines is the true one, every person the apostles and first century Christians baptized employing the two “wrong” sets of words was eternally damned?  How many of the first century Christians must have missed heaven because they did not know which of the various sets of words were the magic keys to heaven!  How unfortunate, indeed, how misleading it is that Luke, writing under inspiration, does not give the slightest hint that either Acts 2:38, or 8:16, or 19:5, or any other verbal formulation whatsoever, is essential to salvation!  What errors the apostles made as well in allowing all those baptized in Acts into church membership, whichever set of words are recorded in connection with their baptism, although the two-thirds with the wrong formula were not truly saved!  Or is it not rather obvious that the Oneness Pentecostal notion that a certain set of words is essential to salvation cannot be sustained in the book of Acts or elsewhere in Scripture?  Since there is no consistent set of words recorded in Acts in connection with baptism “in the name of” the Lord, and so Acts is not giving a specific set of words that must be employed without sinning and facing eternal damnation, what does the “name” terminology really mean?

Baptism is “in the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 2:38), not because Jesus is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, nor because the words “in the name of Jesus” or some similar non-Trinitiarian formula was uttered when the ceremony was performed, but because baptism is performed with Christ’s authority.  The Lord Jesus, who has all authority or power (Matthew 28:18), commanded that baptism be performed with the Trinitarian formula of Matthew 28:19.  When this is done (and other requirements for baptism are met, such as that the person being baptized is a believer, not an infant), the baptism is performed with Christ’s authority, that is, in His name.  When Baptist churches employ the Trinitarian formula the Lord Jesus commanded for use until the end of the world (Matthew 28:20), they are baptizing in Jesus’ name.

            The fact that “in the name of” means “with the authority of” is evident in Scripture.  Several examples, out of many, will be given.  In Deuteronomy 18:5-7, the Levites were “to minister in the name of the LORD.”  Unlike the other tribes, they had Jehovah’s authority to do their Levitical work.  They did not go around all day long repeating His name in a sort of mantra.  Their ministrations in the tabernacle and temple, teaching the Law to God’s people and completing other work, was done with Divine authority, hence “in His name.”  In 1 Samuel 25:9, “when David’s young men came, they spake to Nabal according to all those words in the name of David, and ceased.”  David’s young men came to Nabal with David’s authority and gave Nabal a message from David.  They did not come to Nabal and say, “David, David, David, David.”  In 1 Kings 18:32, Elijah “built an altar in the name of the LORD: and he made a trench about the altar, as great as would contain two measures of seed.”  Elijah built the altar with Jehovah’s authority (1 Kings 18:36).  The point was not that he repeated the Tetragrammaton over and over again.  In Esther 3:12, “the king’s scribes called on the thirteenth day of the first month, and there was written according to all that Haman had commanded unto the king’s lieutenants, and to the governors that were over every province, and to the rulers of every people of every province according to the writing thereof, and to every people after their language; in the name of king Ahasuerus was it written, and sealed with the king’s ring.”  The letter had the authority of king Ahasuerus, so all men in his empire needed to pay attention.  The words of the letter were not “Ahasuerus, Ahasuerus, Ahasuerus.”  In 2 Thessalonians 3:6, Paul wrote, “[B]rethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ . . . withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.”  The apostle commanded the church at Thessalonica with Christ’s authority.  Paul wrote under inspiration, and the command to practice church discipline was given by the Lord Jesus in Matthew 18:15-20.  In Acts 4:7, the elders of Israel asked Peter what authority the apostle had for his message.  Their question was, “By what power, or by what name, have ye done this?”  In Luke 24:47—which sets the background for the use of “in the name of” formulae in Acts, since Luke wrote Acts as the continuation of his gospel (Luke 1:1-4; Acts 1:1-4) and the preaching in Acts was in fulfillment of the command given in Luke 24 (cf. Matthew 28:19-20; Mark 16:15)—“repentance and remission of sins should be preached in [Christ’s] name among all nations.”  That is, the Lord Jesus gave authority to the church to preach repentance and remission of sins, and so this preaching was done as recorded in the book of Acts.  “In the name of” means “with the authority of” in Scripture.

            Acts 19:1-7 demonstrates that the formula given in Matthew 28:19 was employed by the apostolic churches, corroborating that Trinitarian baptism is actually baptism with Christ’s authority (Acts 19:5).  When Paul found people who claimed to be “disciples” (v. 1) who had “not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost” (v. 2), the apostle, in shock, asked “Unto what then were ye baptized?”  Since the churches were “baptizing . . . in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” (Matthew 28:19), employing the Trinitarian formula in their baptismal ceremony, Paul asks these alleged “disciples” how they could have been baptized and never have heard of the Holy Ghost, when He is mentioned in the baptismal ritual itself.  Paul’s question would not make any sense if the baptismal ceremony employed a formula such as “I baptize you in the name of Jesus.”  How would that formula be a guarantee that all baptized disciples had heard of the Holy Ghost?  Trinitarians correctly explain Paul’s mental process as, “How could these people be disciples in Christian churches—they have not even heard of the Holy Ghost, but He is mentioned in the act of baptism itself!  ‘Unto what then were ye baptized?’”  Oneness Pentecostals would have made Paul think, “How could these people be disciples in Christian churches—they have not even heard of the Holy Ghost—now He isn’t mentioned in the act of baptism, since only the word “Jesus” is used in the formula.  However, I’ll ask them what they were baptized unto anyway, as if that related to what they had just said somehow.”

Very early documents in church history demonstrate that even around the end of the first century baptism was administered employing the Trinitarian formula.  Near the end of the first century, it was written:  “Now concerning baptism, baptize as follows: after you have reviewed all these things, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Didache 7:1). “For those things which the prophets announced, saying, ‘Until He come for whom it is reserved, and He shall be the expectation of the Gentiles,’ have been fulfilled in the Gospel, [our Lord saying,] ‘Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.’” (Ignatius to the Philadelphians, chapter 9).  Some decades later, declarations like the following are found: “For the law of baptizing has been imposed, and the formula prescribed: ‘Go,’ He saith, ‘teach the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.’” (Tertullian, On Baptism, Chapter 13).  In contrast, no extant patristic writer or ancient document says anything like “we should not baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, but in the name of Jesus Christ” or anything remotely similar.  True churches in the earliest centuries of Christianity employed the Trinitarian baptismal formula (as even proto-Catholicism did).

When Biblical churches employ the Trinitarian formula in baptism, they are baptizing in Jesus’ name, just like the first century churches did.  Oneness Pentecostals that employ the phrase “in the name of Jesus” when immersing people but believe the idolatrous heresy that Jesus is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit do not have any authority from God for their practice—they are the ones who do not really baptize in the name of Jesus Christ.

[1]                 “of you” (humon), is a second person pronoun in the genitive case.  It is a partitive genitive (see pgs. 84-86, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Wallace) indicating the group from which each person was derived.

[1]                 Ephesians 4:26-27 is an example:

Be ye angry (2nd person plural imperative)

and sin not (2nd person plural imperative)

            [do] not . . . let go down (3rd person singular imperative)

            the sun (nominative singular noun)

                        upon your wrath

neither give place (2nd person plural imperative)

            to the devil.

Compare Joshua 6:10 (LXX, trans. Brenton):

And Joshua commanded the people, saying,

Cry not out (2nd person plural imperative)

            nor let any one hear (3rd person singular imperative)

                        your voice, until . . the time to cry out, and then

ye shall cry out (2nd person plural future indicative).

One Particular Corruption of Repentance to Accommodate a Methodology, Success, and Numbers

Through my years, I've heard or read many numbers of perversions of the doctrine of salvation, but I want to focus on one.  Someone defines repentance as a willingness to change, a willingness to turn from his way to God's way.  Further, once he is willing, he doesn't in fact change or turn.  He might, but in this case, he doesn't.  According to this definition, repentance is the willingness to change or turn, but he may not change or turn. Even further, he is still saved.  The people who agree with this definition say that a person may not ever change after he has repented.

When a person is willing to change, he will change.  If he doesn't change, he wasn't willing.  One important way you will know that he wasn't willing is because he doesn't change.  I have no problem with defining repentance as a willingness to turn or change, but not that the person who is willing, might not change.  He will change, because he is willing.

Churches lure in numbers of lost people with something other than the gospel itself.  They might present to these lost that they must be willing to change or turn in order to be justified (I'm using the term "justified" to speak of salvation, being born again, or conversion).  Then upon making a profession of faith or this willingness to repent, these lost do not change.  They leave church never to come back.  When asked if these people are justified, these churches say "yes."  Why?  Because they repented, that is, they were willing to change.

At the time of this willingness to change or a profession of faith, the churches called this experience justification and counted this as another person justified.  When the person fell away or dropped out, they called them backslidden.  They were justified, but backslidden, but still justified.  Someone who is justified, according to this viewpoint, can live in a state of perpetual sin or rebellion. 

Scripture says that those in perpetual sin or rebellion are not saved (1 John 3:1-9).  They have not repented.  They were not willing to change.

Those who do not change never repented.  If they had truly repented, the grace of God will justify, save them and continue to save them.  The grace of God changes them.  When it doesn't change them, it's because they were never justified in the first place. And they were not justified because they did not repent.

The churches that label a "willingness to change" that does not result in change, repentance and then justification, are corrupting the gospel.  They are also making their victims twice the children of hell they once were.

Perfect Preservation of Scripture and Young Earth Creationism

For awhile an issue has existed between what is now called "old earth creation" and "new earth creation."  New earth creation takes Genesis literally and old earth creation allegorizes it.  This bubbled to the surface again with a defense of old earth creation from Justin Taylor at The Gospel Coalition blog.  Many have answered Taylor, one being Ken Ham on the Answers in Genesis site.

In the midst of his answering Taylor, Ham writes:

I am prepared to go out on a limb, on the basis of my experience in the biblical creation apologetics ministry and of all I’ve read over the past 40+ years, to say this. When Christian leaders today are rejecting a dogmatic stand on six literal, 24-hour days of creation and a young earth, if you search their writings or question them, you will find that ultimately their thinking is being controlled by the belief in an old earth/universe (billions of years). Even though some try to claim that is not so but that they are just looking at what the Bible says, if you ask the right questions, I assert, you will find this strong influence is there. You simply do not get the idea of millions or billions of years from Scripture—it comes from outside of Scripture. The belief in millions and billions of years has so permeated the world, and has permeated the church, especially Christian academia.

And thus I am saying the age of the earth/universe comes down to an authority issue.

What I want to do is to take Ham's paragraph and replace some words to show you that the issue of young earth creationism is the same as the issue of perfect preservation.  Here goes:

I am prepared to go out on a limb, on the basis of my experience in the biblical preservation of scripture apologetics ministry and of all I’ve read over the past 40+ years, to say this. When Christian leaders today are rejecting a dogmatic stand on the perfect preservation of scripture, if you search their writings or question them, you will find that ultimately their thinking is being controlled by the belief in the science of textual criticism. Even though some try to claim that is not so but that they are just looking at what the Bible says, if you ask the right questions, I assert, you will find this strong influence is there. You simply do not get the idea of the science of textual criticism from Scripture—it comes from outside of Scripture. The belief in multiple Bibles that has so permeated the world, and has permeated the church, especially Christian academia.

And thus I am saying the issue of the preservation of scripture comes down to an authority issue.

To believe young earth creation requires faith in God's Word.  To believe perfect preservation requires faith in God's Word.

The two issues are identical in this way.  Both old earth creationism and less than perfect preservation of scripture (multiple versionism, the science of textual criticism, eclectic text) are faithless.  They both arise from doubt.

Hannah W. Smith's Higher Life patrons, the Mount-Temples: part 8 of 21 in Hannah W. Smith: Keswick Founder, Higher Life Preacher, Quaker Quietist and Universalist Heretic

This entire 21-part study appears on the FaithSaves.net website in a study entitled “Hannah Whitall Smith: Higher Life Writer, Speaker on Sanctification, Developer of the Keswick Theology, Quaker Quietist and Universalist Heretic.” Click here to read the entire study.

 

Search for:

 

“Mrs. Mount-Temple was not only Mrs. Smith’s patron in her Higher Life preaching, but the two became very close friends.”

 

to read the section that was in the blog post below.

The Evil Junction of False Gospel, Distorted Sanctification, Success, Church Growth, Second Blessing, Keswick, and Man-Centered Methods

To start, I want to apologize to everyone for whom I have not been clear enough in the past about what I will write here today.  For many reasons, some legitimate and some not, I have not expressed how much I hate and how dangerous and defiled I think it is.  Some of you are going to read the title and get it immediately, some will sort of get it, and others will be clueless.  I want to help.

It is difficult to know where to start, mainly because it is difficult to know the primary source of the problem I'm addressing.  The worst of it is a false gospel, but I don't know if it starts with that.  That's the most foundational, unless I included a fundamental distortion of the identity of Jesus Christ as a part of the false gospel.  However, a false gospel is in part what comes out of it and then one notices is a necessity for the distorted sanctification and methods.  The gospel, sanctification, and then methods always interrelate.

Everyone needs to change, including me, and to do that, people need patience.  Sometimes patience becomes an excuse.  We just don't want to take the hard step of confrontation, exposure, and separation.  I still don't want to do that.  I want to be liked too.  We don't want to be alone.  It seems horrible and stupid that we enable bad stuff by accommodating.  I have done that though.  Stick with me here.  I'm not going to give my history, but I did put up with some associations that were wrong, because I thought it was appropriate.  I don't think so any more.

I want to give as succinct a summary of what I'm talking about first.  As I summarize, I am not fully certain on the order of how the elements of this appear, but I'm going to give my opinion in as positive manner as possible.   That is the only aspect that is opinion, the order.  The elements are actual -- they are occurring.  Here goes.

Churches use gimmicks to lure lost attenders in order to have more people.  The attenders come for the attraction and when they get there, a message is preached, called a gospel.  This is not a crowd coming mainly because it wants the gospel, but because of a gimmick.  A service and a message is geared to that kind of person.  Over time, people make professions and don't stay, what is sometimes called a turn-over.  A low percentage stay.

The professions are still explained as salvations.  The message may have been believe, pray this prayer, or even repent, with repent being solely a "change of mind" or a "mere willingness to change." When the attendees stop coming to church, they are still considered to be saved people, but they're "backslidden," because they never were "dedicated."  The people who come back are those who were "saved," but now are dedicated.  Some (very few) do, if they "get right."  This dedication is the view of sanctification.   The idea is people who are saved need some experience after salvation that will cause the salvation to flourish and be fruitful. Some have it and others don't, but even those who don't have it -- they're still saved.

The last two paragraphs are the essence of what I'm talking about -- a lot more could be said.  The false gospel is the corrupt response to the message they proclaim.  The message must be wrong too, because you can't have an actual saving Jesus in the heart of the one with something less than a right response to Him. So, yes, Jesus is distorted too.  Was this caused by the  method?  Maybe.  I think the method was led by the desire for success, which is church growth and it will authenticate the church as being powerful or having revival.  It's a man-centered method.  The later dedication that brings someone back to church is the second blessing.  That experience is the keswick one.  I also believe many have convinced themselves that this is a true version of Christianity, like other false views have.

I don't want to have anything to do with what I'm describing above.  I want to stay as far away from it as I can.  I don't even see it, as a whole, as Christianity.  I think you have some Christians in these churches and organizations, but overall it isn't Christian.  I don't want anyone to think I support the above with my association and my proximity to it.  Some might think I believe it is permissible, with some justification.  I don't at all.

What I have described above also comes with a lot of other distortions.  It isn't unusual that these churches have revivalistic music that is part of their church growth philosophy, that isn't worship. The music is merely a method.  These associate a certain type of music with the Holy Spirit because of the feeling it produces.  They think the feeling is the Holy Spirit working or moving.  This fits with its false view of spirituality that is the distortion in its sanctification.

Often these churches also have to have a certain style of "preaching."  They think of it as "alive."  The preaching isn't dead, but "alive."  What they consider "living" is actually just emotional.  They often can't handle biblical teaching or at least much of it, because they don't think that it is endued with the Holy Spirit.  The preaching and the music go hand in hand.  The feeling all tends toward emotional decisions that might also produce "dedication."  All of it amounts to manipulation and it fools people, and yet the advocates say "God is blessing" or "God worked."  It mostly isn't God.  I say mostly only because there is some Bible there, and if and when there is, God does bless that, but only when it occurs.

I want to park a moment on the false gospel.  The worst reduce the "gospel" to repeating words or "praying a prayer."  Others, not the ones doing it, have called this "1-2-3 pray-with-me."  Some say that repentance is not a prerequisite to justification and salvation, but a post-justification work.  Some say that repentance is repenting of unbelief.  Some say that repentance is a mere change of mind that accompanies faith.  Some say that repentance is a willingness to change, but will not necessarily result in changing.  They say you've got to want to change, but you may not for awhile.  None of what I've described is a biblical response to gospel truth, but these are the versions of the gospel that fall short, that accompany the wrong methodology and the distorted sanctification.

Also what I am explaining fits with a certain view of church government.  The church needs an operator, who can keep it all going, to keep it all in alignment.  I've often called him the circus-meister. He must hold tight reigns on everything, since the grace of God will not.  There must be a means to produce the look of true sanctification.  Some of the behavior is right, but it is caused by a system that isn't.

The evil junction of all these things has turned into a kind of religion and it is how false religion starts and builds.  The people involved now think it is the truth.  If they see something different, they think they are seeing an impostor, which they reject.  In so doing, they think they've shown good judgment. They've actually walked away from the light.  It creates a people who lack in discernment.  And the lack of discernment is sometimes what is necessary to keep the show going.

When these churches perform these acts, they call it love.  They see themselves as being loving, since they also see their goals as good.  This "love" isn't love, but sentimentalism.  Love is according to the truth, and this is not the truth.  So love is twisted as well.

What is very sad is that a lot of what I have described is called Baptist and independent.  It is not Bible, however.  It is not obedient to the Lord.  It is its own way.

If you represent what I'm writing about, do not go into a defense mode.  Be willing to change. Consider what I am writing and whether it is you.  Examine yourself.  Evaluate what you are doing. Believe the Bible.  Do just what it says.  Trust in God.  Wait on Him.  Find your satisfaction in Who He is and what He said. Rely on God's Word to convince others of the same.

Learn a true gospel. Preach only a true gospel.  Expect those who make professions to live for Christ. When they don't, don't consider them to be saved.  Stop relying on extrascriptural and unscriptural means.  Stop manipulating people.  Plant and water.  Let God give the increase.  Worship God.  Enjoy the results God gives.  Live by faith.

If you are supporting what I've warned about.  Stop doing that.  Help those people to change.  Don't accommodate them any longer.

A Case Study in the Practical Consequences of Evangelical Bibliology

The story I'm going to tell is quite ordinary.  Many in the world think they are experts now at textual criticism, because the word is out -- the Bible has errors in it.  Not everything in it can be counted upon.  Maybe you're thinking, "It does not have errors in it."  But that is what evangelicals and many fundamentalists say.

I was out evangelizing last Wednesday before our Bible study and prayer.  I talked to a youngish single mother at her door.  Of course, I was preaching the gospel.  I asked her if she knew she was saved, sure she had eternal life.  She said, "Yes."  I asked how she knew, and she paraded her accomplishments.   In the midst of the give and take, I communicated to her that as I listened, I based my judgment of what she said on the Bible.   Scripture taught something different about salvation than what she said.  At that juncture, she said that she didn't trust everything the Bible said because parts of it had been changed.  So I then asked her how she knew that, that the Bible had errors in it. She just did.

"She just did" isn't a good answer for me, but it was where she was.  She didn't have total confidence in the Word of God.  She believed parts of it were true, but that she couldn't rely on all of it.

As I listened to her, I recognized this as a new norm in the psyche of those who might care enough even to listen and then answer a question about the Bible.  She had a very subjective type of faith that's fine with a feeling she trusts more than the Bible.  I explained to her that the Bible doesn't have errors, because God inspired it.  You see, a lot of people don't have trouble with the idea that God gave His Word, but they're not convinced He's kept it intact.  I told that God also promised to preserve it and that we can count on God for its preservation.

Anyway, I spent some time pumping up the Bible with all sorts of scriptural arguments in addition to giving her a brief gospel presentation.  But most professing Christians have relinquished the idea that we have a perfectly preserved edition of the Word of God.  She's got plenty on which to lean on that front.

It was easy for me to think about evangelical arguments for trusting the Bible, despite its errors.  It's a supernatural book, the Bible, and part of that is that God expects us to believe the doctrine of it despite no hope that we are reading exactly what He inspired.  And we can overcome our doubt by thinking about textual evidence.  Sure, corruption has occurred, but not enough to destroy doctrines. No doctrine has been changed, and then if we compare all the copies, there is a lot, a lot of agreement.  We basically know what it is, good enough that we can trust all of its teachings.  No teachings have been lost.  We can't count on the Words, but that's the beauty of it.  God has chosen to use a slightly broken thing to do something wonderful.

I didn't give her the contents of that last paragraph, because I don't believe it.  I told her what God's people believed before the 19th century, that is, God promises perfect preservation, and we can count on that promise.  But evangelicals and fundamentalists have provided reasons to doubt.

I also imagine evangelicals reading this post.  God has worked in amazing ways to give us what we have.  We should be thankful for the overwhelming wealth of manuscripts.   All the Words are most surely in there -- not actually surely (wink, wink) -- in the preponderance of the hand written copies (do you have a manuscript with the original of 1 Samuel 13:1?  No, but we're still not lying.).

What I'm writing about here is directly related to reassessing and redefining inerrancy.  Evangelicals adapt to save the faith of some, to protect from creating more Bart Ehrmans after they've dug a little deeper.  And if you're going to fudge there, then it's also permissible to accept some latitude on the meaning of faith and more.  So it's no wonder, if someone is looking for faith, he can skip the scriptural type and embrace something more subjective, based upon a personal experience with the Holy Spirit.

Questions on Repentance from a Prominent Preacher

A prominent preacher asked me the following questions concerning the Biblical doctrine of repentance some time ago in connection with my study on the subject here.  I thought that his questions and the response he received might be of benefit to the readers of What is Truth, so I have posted them.

His questions:

Is the salvation decision two steps or one?  Are repentance and faith two distinct acts of the will or are they two sides of one coin?

Must the word "Repent" be part of every valid Gospel appeal?

Is repentance a decision confined to the matter of salvation, or is it a concept applicable to many issues?

Fundamentally, is repentance of sin a promise to do better, verified by doing better?  Will repentance alone change a life, and how much?  Is the sinner sick and in need of a doctor, or can he get rid of his sin by simply repenting of it?

Doesn't the Greek word for repentance really mean a change of mind, based on its etymology?

Does true repentance include deep sorrow for sin, or does godly sorrow lead to repentance?

My response:

The salvation decision is certainly one step, one of turning from sin to Christ as Lord and Savior.  

The word “repent” is not necessary in every Gospel appeal (Acts 16:31) in the same way that the word “believe” is not necessary in every Gospel appeal (Acts 3:19).  My own practice is that I will essentially always use “believe” or a synonym in giving the gospel, and I will essentially always use “repent” or a synonym also.  

Certainly repentance is applicable to many issues, just as faith has to do with many things in addition to justification.  

Neither repentance or faith will change a life, but coming into union with Jesus Christ will always change a life, and one comes into union with Christ by repentant faith, and one who does not want to be changed will not be brought into union with Christ because he does not really want the Savior.  

The word metanoeo/metanoia sometimes, but not always, meant an “afterthought” that might or might not result in any change many hundreds of years before the NT was written, but that sense does not exist in the NT and, as far as I can tell, in the literature of early Christendom. We recognize that a word can change very dramatically in meaning in, say, 800 years; we do not assume that what a word meant in Beowolf is what it means in modern English.  A detailed English dictionary will trace the history of words back to the times of Beowolf, and then Chaucer, etc., but we see what a word means today by its use in modern times, not by how it was used in Old or Middle English.  When we look at the many uses of metanoeo/metanoia in the NT and in Koine Greek, the word means what all the lexica say—in the first century NT, in contradistinction to what the word meant many hundreds of years earlier, the word means what a standard lexicon such as Louw-Nida says:  “[T]o change one’s way of life as the result of a complete change of thought and attitude with regard to sin and righteousness — ‘to repent, to change one’s way, repentance.’ . . . Though in English a focal component of repent is the sorrow or contrition that a person experiences because of sin, the emphasis in metanoeo and metanoia seems to be more specifically the total change, both in thought and behavior, with respect to how one should both think and act. Whether the focus is upon attitude or behavior varies somewhat in different contexts. . . . Though it would be possible to classify metanoeo and metanoia in [the category of words for] [t]hink[ing], the focal semantic feature of these terms is clearly behavioral rather than intellectual.”  

True repentance includes sorrow for sin if we are speaking about the Hebrew nacham and the Greek metamelomai, and godly sorrow leads to repentance if we are speaking about the Hebrew shub and the Greek metanoia; all four words are translated as “repent” at various points in the KJV.

Readers who want to see an example of how to explain repentance in an evangelistic encounter are encouraged to examine the study here or the video here, as well as the evangelistic Bible study here. The theology of repentance is explained here as well as in many articles at What is Truth, and is stated well in many standard Baptist confessions of faith.

TDR

Is Prohibition of Alcohol Demonic?

In less than five minutes, I can finish looking at the websites I view almost daily.  From there, I might read what I find therein.  In today's case, I went to SharperIron, to its blogroll, and saw the headline for Andy Naselli, so I clicked on it.  A colleague where he teaches, Joe Rigney, wrote a book, The Things of Earth: Treasuring God by Enjoying His Gifts.  The theme sounded interesting, because I too wonder often about the purpose of various of these good things on earth besides the potential of idolatry.  At what point have we moved from enjoyment to idolatry?  When do we know?  The book is available to the point of exploration according to the supposition of Joe Rigney.

Rigney points to his greatest influences:  Jonathan Edwards, C. S. Lewis, John Piper, and Douglas Wilson.  It's too bad that Edwards is lumped with the other three, but I get it.  Piper has hijacked Edwards some to mean what he says and Wilson takes that thought even further.  And we get to booze. Alcohol consumption takes the stage of the discussion like the clown at a rodeo.  At the bottom of Naselli's post, he links to a two part presentation by Rigney on "Should Christians Drink Alcohol?"  I do hesitate in linking to his talk, because there are vulnerable people out there begging to justify their imbibing.  I go ahead and link for the sake of fairness.  I decided to start listening as I supped and swallowed some soup for lunch.

Joe Rigney offered four possible positions on alcohol from right to left:  prohibition, abstention, moderation, and abuse.  He explained each of those, parking for awhile to offer the reasons why Christians abstain (the second position).  From defining the four, he lopped off the two outside positions as unchristian, saying that prohibition is demonic, taking 1 Timothy 4:1-5 as proof, and that abuse is damning, referring to a few texts that anathematize drunkards.

For sake of consistency and symmetry, I didn't like "abuse" as a position.  I'm going to help Rigney out here with dissipation for a fourth category.  Plus, abuse doesn't sound like a position.  You may as well leave it off completely, because no one takes it as a "position."  And then he lumps prohibition and abuse together like strange bedfellows.

When you hear Rigney talk, he speaks with severe articulation at prohibition and with sympathy toward abuse.  He gets very stern in his denunciation of prohibition, leaving behind measured tones. I think these types of evangelicals are more angry at prohibition than they are drunkenness.  What does that say for them?  He excoriates prohibition as demonic with a feathery brush stroke of 1 Timothy 4:1-5.  He doesn't establish by any means that what Paul is writing there should apply to alcohol. This is what might be termed, "preaching to the choir."

I'm thinking, "Woe, woe, woe, woe, woe. Wait uh minute. That doesn't prove anything."  And Rigney is done with 1 Timothy 4:1-5 and moving on.  Prohibition is demonic, point said, point proved. You've got to ask, "Did God create alcohol?"  Like one might ask, "Did God create the ebola virus?"  I know God has allowed these things, which is different than creating them.  Even further, did God create distilled beverages?   That makes me start to laugh over Rigney's stunning ease at flicking away prohibition as unchristian.

When you call a position on alcohol, "prohibition," you need to know that you are associating it with the constitutional ban on the sale, production, importation, and transportation of alcoholic beverages in the United States from 1920 to 1933.  It isn't easy to amend the Constitution.  We've done it only seventeen times since 1791.  There was widespread support for prohibition in 1920 in the American population, what Rigney would call "demonic."  More laughter ensues.

I wasn't motivated to write this post until I heard Rigney call prohibition "demonic."  Until then, I could have remained somewhat ambivalent to what he was saying, even curious.  I think believers do need to learn the right approach to God's good creation in relation to Christian service.

This post answers a very specific question prompted by Joe Rigney, "Is prohibition of alcohol demonic?"  He uses 1 Timothy 4:1-5 as a proof text.

1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; 3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. 4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: 5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

The demons are in v. 1, "doctrines of devils."  Apostates are seduced by doctrines of devils, prohibition being that doctrine (so says Rigney), so prohibition lies on the road to apostasy.  Apparently, Satan wants to use prohibition of alcohol to damn men's souls.  In contrast, promotion of alcohol ostensibly leads toward eternal life.

The error Paul addresses in the proposed text rejects good things God Himself created for beneficial reasons.  God created marriage and created meat for men to enjoy.  How controversial are marriage and meat in evangelicalism?  Those are at the root of the argument against the false doctrine Paul exposes.  Paul is rejecting the asceticism that was part of the philosophical dualism in Ephesus and other Greek cities.  They thought they could achieve some elevated kind of spiritual existence by denying themselves material things.  You still see this in modern religions, and this can seep into and influence Christians, as in the examples of celibacy and monasticism. The apostasy comes with the denial of true spirituality found through the work of Jesus Christ and in favor of our own work of self-denial.

Is denying alcohol a form of asceticism?  Is this an example Paul would have in mind?  To help yourself understand better, replace prohibition of alcohol with prohibition of crack or crack pipes or heroin or crystal meth. Is denying crystal meth a form of asceticism that could drag someone into a denial of Christ's finished work?  Is meth just another element God created for all men to enjoy? From what I've read, meth is a stress reliever, helps someone get through boring jobs more easily, and boosts creativity, so perhaps Rigney could have kept rolling right into other "created" substances.

Are there physical things on earth that should be denied, based upon bad inherent qualities?  God created everything, but does that mean that sin has had no impact on creation since then?  Is everything innocent since the fall?  I believe that what Naselli calls a 'skillful answer' to the question, "Should Christians drink alcohol?" is actually a horrible answer.  The biblical position is "prohibition," and yet Rigney labels that demonic.  When you call the right answer demonic, you haven't done a very skillful job of answering.  Rigney said he was very serious about "demonic," something that men often say when they're afraid of not being taken seriously -- this time for good reason.

Ephesians 5:18 starts, "And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess."  The phrase "wherein is excess" translates four Greek words (en ho estin asotia) that could be translated literally, "in which is dissipation."  Ho ("which," "where") is a relative pronoun that requires an antecedent.  "Wine" (oinos) is masculine and singular and ho, the relative pronoun, is masculine and singular.  The antecedent agrees in gender and number.  "In" the wine itself is the dissipation, the profligacy, the debauchery, the meaning of "excess" (asotia).   How could that be?  Didn't God create everything for man to enjoy?

There are no other possible referents for ho than "wine."  If in contradiction to Greek grammar, ho referred to "drunk," inferred in the infinitive "to be drunk" (not a noun), Paul (and God) would be saying be not drunk with wine, wherein is drunkenness, making Paul (and God) redundant.  In drunkenness is drunkenness. Yes, I see.  Good point, Paul.  Incisive.  In drunkenness is drunkenness. That's not what Paul was writing.

Yes, God created everything for man to enjoy.  But not everything exists for man to enjoy. Everything has been spoiled or corrupted by sin to some degree.  Rigney's view is a simplistic and superficial view of prohibition that deserved more than his condescending brush-off -- actually worse, because he calls it demonic during his brief dismissal.  The Corinthians argument for fornication was meats for the belly and belly for meats (1 Cor 6:13).  This seems to be closer to the Rigney argument against prohibition.

In the wine itself is excess, not just in the abuse of it.  "Abuse" doesn't work as a category if the excess is in the substance itself.  Anyone knows that there are things we shouldn't eat or drink.  They are dangerous or deadly.  If you know what oinos is, you know that Jesus could turn water into an acceptable form of it.  The kind that causes drunkenness is prohibited by scripture.  When wine is alcoholic, it is prohibited (Prov 23:31).  It no longer exists to be enjoyed.

By calling prohibition demonic, Joe Rigney will encourage alcohol and reap drunkenness.  It isn't a skillful argument from scripture, but a perversion.  May everyone see it for what it is.