Baptism controversy theology essay

Forgiveness, Ephesians, Communion, Biblical Reflection

Excerpt from Essay:

Theology: The Baptism Debate

Peter’s encouragement rollo on the Day of Pentecost – “repent and let each of you end up being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you shall receive the O Spirit” (Acts 2: 38) has been the supply of raging issue, marred by conflicting views on i) whether Peter was referring to nature or water baptism; and ii) if through the expression ‘be baptizedthe forgiveness of sins’, Philip was determining baptism as being a requirement for salvation[footnoteRef: 1]. In other words, ought to Peter’s exhortation be construed at face value, or should it be understood some other way? This textual content purposes to interact with the opposing thoughts about these issues, examine their biblical and syntactic viability, and after that conclude with an model that aligns with both instant and the much larger contexts of the verse involved. [1: 1 Bruce Compton, “Water Baptism and the Forgiveness of Sins in Acts 2: 38, inches Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 4 (Fall 1999): 3]

The objective of Baptism

Should certainly baptism become regarded as a problem for salvation or as a consequence of salvation? Although it is still largely unquestionable that baptism is performed for making one a witness to Christian trust and as a show of behavior to Christ’s ordinance; generally there still is simply no consensus in what the genuine purpose of baptism is. Is it a means of strengthening their already-acquired salvation, or can it be a way whereby an individual receives salvation and receives forgiveness for their sins?

Baptism as a Consequence of Salvation

Followers of this point of view interpret the phrase ‘for the forgiveness of sins’ as a adjustment of the baptism command, so that salvation (forgiveness) is not the outcome of baptism, nevertheless the motivation or basis for it[footnoteRef: 2]. In this case, the preposition ‘for’ is interpreted as a causal antecedent for baptism, and Peter’s exhortation is for that reason understood because “repent (and after you have done that)be baptized for the remission (forgiveness) of sins”[footnoteRef: 3]. In this regard, Peter is appealing to those who have accepted his meaning and repented to be baptized because their sins are actually fully pardoned. This point of view enjoys support from exceptional theological students including Nigel Turner, Kenneth Wuest, Charles C. Ryrie, A. To. Robertson, Julius R. Mantey, and W. A, Criswell; and is depending on two lines of purpose; first, this maintains an “evangelical theology since it keeps that solution is by hope alone and never faith additionally baptism”[footnoteRef: 4]. Ephesians 2: 8-9; Acts sixteen: 31; and John 1: 12 will be among key Scripture recommendations identifying trust as the sole requirement for solution[footnoteRef: 5]. Proponents on this view further express which the fact that Paul does not mention baptism in the Gospel summarize (1 Corinthians 15: 1-8) makes it (baptism) a rather insignificant aspect of the Gospel. Christ’s death was all that was needed to offer us salvation; adding circumstances to the work of salvation, therefore , only implies the contrary – that we ought to append each of our virtuous actions atop Christ’s death in order to secure solution[footnoteRef: 6]. This, in respect to a placing by the Got Questions Ministry, would “make salvation influenced by our functions, instead of determined by the perfect and sacrifice of Jesus Christ”[footnoteRef: 7]. [2: 2 Compton, “Water Baptism and the Forgiveness of Sins in Serves 2: 38, ” 13] [3: 3 Lanny Thomas Tanton, “The Gospel and Water Baptism: A Study of Acts two: 38, inches Journal in the Grace Evangelical Society several no . 1( Spring 1990)] [4: 5 Tanton, “The Gospel and Water Baptism: A Study of Acts a couple of: 38, inch n. pag] [5: five “Is Baptism Required for Solution? ” Got Questions Ministries, Accessed Sept. 2010 18, 2014, http://www.compellingtruth.org/baptism-salvation.html] [6: 6 Kenneth Samuel Wuest, Wuest’s Word Studies from the Greek Fresh Testament pertaining to the English language Reader (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. M. Eerdmans Publishing, 1973), 104] [7: several Got Inquiries Ministry. “Is Baptism Required for Salvation? “]

A second defense for this interpretation arises from the evaluations drawn between Peter’s exhortation and parallel Scripture sources (Matt a few: 11; 12: 41 and Romans you: 16; eleven: 32) that depict a causal marriage. Kenneth Wuest makes particular reference to Shiny 12: 4, which states that Nineveh repented by (because of) Jonah’s speaking[footnoteRef: 8]. In his perspective, it would be silly to say the men of Nineveh repented ‘in order to’ or ‘for’ Jonah’s preaching, as suggested simply by opposing interpretations. [8: Wuest, Wuest’s Word Research from the Ancient greek language New Testament for the English Visitor, 16]

Despite having outstanding defenders, this presentation has three significant downsides, the first being that old writers would not often spend significant attention to the difference among telic and causal[footnoteRef: 9]. In addition, a closer scrutiny of the identified parallel pathways appears to discredit the prospective customers of a origin interpretation – in Shiny 12: forty one, for instance, the interpretation that Nineveh repented because of Jonah’s preaching does not show for the point – rather, the preposition ‘at’ symbolizes the direction towards which all their act of repentance seemed[footnoteRef: 10]. Parallel sources in this regard are the phrase ‘repentance towards God’ in Works 20: 21[footnoteRef: 11]. Supporters of this interpretation have already been accused of selective misrepresentation. The expression ‘for the forgiveness of sins’ shows up in five different contexts in the Fresh Testament (Acts 2: 37; Luke 24: 47; several: 3; Tag 1: 3; and Shiny 26: 28). In He 26: twenty-eight, during the Last Supper, Christ says that “this is the bloodstream of the fresh Covenant, which is shed for a lot of for the remission of sins” – one may then ask, why haven’t the proponents of causal utilization for Acts 2: twenty-eight argued for the similar interpretation to get Matt 21: 28[footnoteRef: 12]? [9: Tanton, “The Gospel and Normal water Baptism: Research of Functions 2: 37, ” n. pag] [10: Tanton, “The Gospel and Water Baptism: A Study of Acts a couple of: 38, inches n. pag] [11: Tanton, “The Gospel and Drinking water Baptism: A report of Functions 2: 32, ” in. pag] [12: Tanton, “The Gospel and Water Baptism: A Study of Acts two: 38, inches n. pag]

Baptism as a Requirement for Salvation

This kind of perspective expresses Peter’s aide in Acts 2: twenty-eight at deal with value – that the key phrase ‘forgiveness of sins’ is actually a synonym for eternal life and salvation; and you might have to be baptized in order to receive the same. Toward this end, baptism is a necessary condition for salvation and everlasting life[footnoteRef: 13]. Supporters of this perspective include Baptismal Regenerationists (those who view baptism as being a work of obedience, which when put together with faith, earns salvation) and Sacramentarians (those who view the work of baptism as a means whereby an individual can be imparted with God’s grace)[footnoteRef: 14]. In this interpretation, the key phrase, ‘for the remission of sins’, is usually taken as a modification for both the ‘be baptized’, plus the ‘repent’ commands[footnoteRef: 15]. The preposition ‘for’ is usually taken to reveal a goal or purpose, so that Peter’s message is then interpreted as ‘be baptized in order to receive salvation’. In this regard, a believer simply cannot have his sins forgiven unless these are formally laundered away by simply baptism[footnoteRef: 16]. [13: Tanton, “The Gospel and Drinking water Baptism: A Study of Serves 2: 38, ” and. pag] [14: Compton, “Water Baptism as well as the Forgiveness of Sins in Acts 2: 38, inch 4] [15: Compton, “Water Baptism plus the Forgiveness of Sins in Acts two: 38, inches 5] [16: Alexander Campbell, Christian Baptism: With its Antecedents and Consequents (1853), Google Ebook, 253]

Proponents of this interpretation base their particular arguments on comparisons drawn from parallel recommendations (Mark sixteen: 16; Acts 22: 16 and David 3: 5) that illustrate baptism as being a requirement for salvation. Mark 18: 16 directions Christians to venture out into the world and proclaim the Gospel, that anyone who thinks and gets baptism should be rescued via eternal damnation, but people who do not believe will lose their souls. Campbell’s interpretation regards belief and baptism (the two circumstances for solution according to the verse) as equal players, such that in the event belief is usually interpreted like a requirement for salvation, then baptism has to be viewed in a related fashion[footnoteRef: 17]. Somewhere else, in Acts 22: of sixteen, Ananias motivates Saul of Tarsus to get baptized and, thence, to obtain his sins washed apart[footnoteRef: 18]. Notwithstanding the very fact that he had seen the risen Christ and thought, Saul had been in pain for three days; and Ananias expresses that he would be saved in the event that his sins were washed away. The passages in John several: 5 and 1 Corinthians 12: 13 further indicate baptism as a condition intended for salvation. In John several: 5, baptism is represented as a requirement of one to enter God’s Empire. 1 Corinthians 12: 13 further conveys that there are only two kingdoms (God’s and Satan’s); one can possibly only be a part of possibly; yet in John a few: 5, Christ expresses that a person cannot get into God’s Empire unless he can born of water and spirit. [17: Campbell, Christian Baptism: With its Antecedents and Consequents, 223] [18: Tanton, “The Gospel and Water Baptism: A Study of Acts 2: 38, inches n. pag]

Judging from the information presented when it comes to either debate, I discover the origin usage interpretation to have a strong theological history, but a comparatively weak lexical background. non-etheless, I determine that irrespective of having a relatively weak biblical background, the requirement interpretation contains a very strong exegetical basis, which is, hence, a better reflection of Peter’s exhortation. Its exegetical strength derives from four major