Attempting to Negate Baptism

Recently, two sisters decided to purchase a Study Bible, and they found one called The NKJV Study Bible, edited by Earl D. Radmacher, and published by Thomas Nelson, copyrighted in 1997, 2007, 2016, and 2018. The way that they try to do away with the necessity of baptism is both typical and commonplace. Cited below are their comments and a Scriptural answer against them. The reader will see that their intent is to make baptism non-essential to salvation. After acknowledging the effect of Peter’s sermon on the multitude listening, they proceed to comment on Acts 2:38.

Repent: Repentance for the Judeans involved rejecting their former attitudes and opinions concerning who Jesus was.

The Judeans did need to repent of their attitudes concerning Jesus’ identity, but they also needed to repent of all their sins. One wonders why the commentary seems to restrict their repentance to just one area when they needed to repent of every form of wickedness. Jesus did not restrict the meaning of the word when He said, “I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish” (Luke 13:3, 5). Neither did Paul limit the definition when he preached on Mars’ Hill: “Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30).

be baptized: When a person recognizes who Jesus Christ really is, the desire is to do what He commands. The first action that Jesus requires of a new believer is baptism (Matt. 28:19, 20), the outward expression of inward faith. The idea of an unbaptized Christian is foreign to the NT…. [All the quotes on Acts 2 are from page 1623.]

They cite Acts 2:41; 8:12, 36; 9:18; 10:48; 16:15, 33; 18:8. The careful reader will observe that they omitted the word and. Is that significant? Yes. It is tremendously important, and we will comment on it a little later.

Although it is clear that the “study Bible” teaches that baptism is necessary, it is also clear that they do not believe it is necessary for a person to be saved. It’s a commandment, and it should be done, but that’s all they are willing to admit. Even though they listed several verses that mention baptism, they omitted the verse where Saul of Tarsus is told, “And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). The significance of this verse will be seen shortly.

The reader surely caught the phrase, the outward expression of inward faith. Where in the Bible is this idea taught? This erroneous notion comes from denominational seminaries—not the Scriptures. It is not found in Matthew 28 or any of the Scriptures cited from the Book of Acts. Skeptical? Read all of them, and see if anything remotely similar can be found.

Baptism is never referred to as an expression, a rite, a ritual, or a ceremony (which is what men are prone to call it). When John came to prepare the way for Jesus, he also preached repentance (broadly applied). People confessed their sins and were then baptized by him. John said nothing about “an outward sign,” but their sins were washed away in baptism (Matt. 3:6). Some of the Pharisees and the Sadducees came to his baptism, but John told them to “bear fruits worthy of repentance” (v. 7). If the connection is not clear between baptism and the forgiveness of sins, then consider why John was reluctant to baptize Jesus: He had no sins—to be washed away—in baptism (3:13-17).

Baptism is not an expression; it is the means by which sins are forgiven (or washed away). The power is not in the water; the power is in the blood of Christ, as we learn in Revelation 1:5. The idea that baptism is just an expression does not come from the Scriptures. At best, it originated from uninspired men; at the worst, it is from the devil.

for the remission of sins: Is Peter saying we must be baptized to receive forgiveness of sins? Scripture clearly teaches that we are justified by faith alone, not by works (see Romans 4:1-8; Eph. 2:8-9).

It is amazing that those who make this argument never see how foolish it is. First of all, no verse in the Bible teaches that we are saved by faith only. The shorter Scripture above says we are saved by grace through faith, which is, of course, true. What it does not say is that we are saved by faith only. Read it several times. The word only will not suddenly materialize there. Neither will anyone find a hint of that word in Romans 4:1-8. Read it several times or look at a concordance. The word only does not appear in the entire passage. Whoever compiled this “Bible Study” is teaching his theology—not handling the Scriptures properly. He wants only to be there; so, he just assumes that it is there—or that it should be there. One loses credibility by insisting a passage teaches what is not there.

Yes, Peter is saying that one needs to be baptized in order to receive forgiveness of sins (just as we noticed that John taught earlier). But that’s not all he teaches. Remember the word and? One must repent and be baptized. Both are necessary to have the forgiveness of sins. If one is needed for forgiveness, both are. If one is not needed, then neither is. In other words, if one must repent to be forgiven, then one must also be baptized to be forgiven. If baptism is not for the purpose of being saved, then neither is repentance.

The author insinuates that baptism is a work. Okay. We will agree that baptism is as much a work as repentance is. Now, are both necessary or neither? If neither are necessary, what is Peter preaching?

The crowd has asked Peter what they should do (Acts 2:37). Are we to believe that Peter’s answer is irrelevant? In effect, he would be answering, “You should repent and be baptized, but since these are works, they will not do you any good, since you are saved by faith alone.” And the people would have said, “Huh? Does that mean we are already saved and didn’t even know it?” Interestingly, Peter mentions neither God’s grace or faith—not that they are unimportant; they are vital. But he spoke of what they yet needed to do—repent and be baptized.

Incidentally, baptism is a work—of God. Man did not invent the concept. Did John get his message from heaven or from men (John 1:33; Matt. 21:25)? All right, then, baptism was from heaven—not men. It is not a work that man can excel in; it involves the working of God. Paul wrote: “buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead” (Col. 2:12).

Does baptism involve faith? Yes. We trust that God will do what He said He would when we are baptized. What did God promise Saul? “Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). Was Saul going to wash away his own sins? No. God washes them away at the moment of baptism. This is not a work of man; it is God’s work.

The Contradiction

So, thus far we have been told that we are justified by faith alone—even though no Scripture so teaches. If faith alone accomplishes salvation, then nothing else could possibly be added to it. But consider the comments later made in the book on Acts 2:39.

Peter exhorted his listeners to repent. In other words, each person had to make the decision to turn away from his or her sinful habits and turn to God in faith (16:31, 33, 34). Then God would forgive that person’s sins… (1623).

How convoluted is this gibberish? The first sentence above is true. Peter did exhort his listeners to repent—and be baptized. But look what this book does to the natural order provided in the text. The people believed and asked what to do. Peter told them to repent and be baptized. They have Peter saying they should repent and turn to God in faith—and leave baptism out altogether. What kind of twisting of the Scriptures is this (2 Peter 3:16)? The chart below shows the problem plainly.

They believed — Should repent and be baptized.
They believed — Should repent and believe again.

Not only does their analysis not make any sense; it contradicts what is plainly taught in the Scriptures. Furthermore, the verse in Acts 16 is not directly related to the Day of Pentecost. It refers to the conversion of the Philippian jailer, who had been impressed by the prisoners and their conduct—the fact that they had been singing and praying to God.

When the doors were shaken loose by a small earthquake, Paul and Silas did not try to escape. The man asked them, “What must I do to be saved?” And Paul answered, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” This is Paul’s introduction to the gospel—not the invitation. It is interesting that the “study Bible” omits verse 32, which states: “Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and all who were in his house.” As yet he knew very little. He had some knowledge (maybe what he had learned just that evening). He knew enough to ask about salvation.

But did he know that Jesus is the Son of God? Peter proved that point from the Scriptures to the Jews in Acts 2. But there is no evidence that this man knew it. He may not have been privy to the crucifixion of Jesus in Jerusalem, as those on Pentecost were. He had to be taught these things before he could be saved. Yes, and he needed to be taught about repentance, also. Apparently, he did repent. He washed their wounds (v. 33)—something John the Baptizer might have called bringing forth fruits to repentance.

He and those with him were baptized immediately—the same hour of the night. Pray tell, what is the urgency of being baptized at 1:00 a.m. (or later) in the morning? If baptism is just an outward expression that someone has been saved, why not wait until the next morning so that people could witness it instead of doing it under the cloak of darkness when no one would notice? Observe that it was after his baptism that he rejoiced. If he was saved by faith before being baptized, why didn’t he rejoice then? We find the same pattern (although the details of knowledge vary) as we did before.

First, there is teaching; then there is acceptance of the Word that has been taught (faith); then there is repentance, and finally there is baptism—during which individuals are saved. Rejoicing follows afterward.

Thus far, we have seen that the authors of this explanation of Acts 2:38 contradict themselves. Do people need to repent after they believe, as is recorded in Acts 2:38? Or do they have to repent and then believe, as this study indicates? And if repentance precedes having their sins forgiven, then so must baptism, since the two actions are joined by the word and. Either people repent because they are saved or they repent in order to be saved. Either people are baptized because they are saved, or they are baptized in order to be saved. They are parallel, and they stand or fall together.

Similarly, the word and joins together belief and baptism in Mark 16:16: “He who believes and is baptized will be saved….” Anyone not blinded by his theology can see two conditions are necessary to obtain the final result. One must 1) believe (in Jesus as the Son of God) and 2) be baptized. It is not a matter of accepting either one or the other; both are necessary in order to be saved.

Some other arguments are made, which, Lord willing, we will examine next week. But what has already been presented is sufficient to show the necessity of baptism.