Peter’s words on Baptism, corrected
Posted on January 31st, 2013
Here’s how Peter concludes his sermon in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost:
Repent and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call. [NKJ]
The problem is this passage is so confusing. Those terrible baby-baptizers try to use this passage to defend their godless traditions. What is needed is a new Bible translation that doesn’t just give us the Apostle’s words, but what they clearly mean. So here’s the correct translation of Acts 2:38-39, with the corrections in bold:
Repent and let every one of you—except for the people we obviously don’t mean: those who haven’t reached the age of accountability—be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ as a symbol for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit some other way—obviously not through the baptism I am talking about. For the promise is to you right now and to your children later on, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call after they make a decision for Jesus.
That’s obviously much better, but it’s still a little wordy, so we’ll have to simplify it a bit. I’ve started with the NKJ text but put the corrections in italics:
Repent and let those of you ready to make a decision be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ as a sign of your obedience, since you’ve already invited the Holy Spirit into your heart. For the decision is yours, and one day perhaps for your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as will decide for the Lord our God.
There, now it is so much clearer.
Tagged: Baptism, Infant Baptism, Pentecost, Peter
I appreciate your Lutheran fervor. I believe Baptists in general have really badly missed the point of these passages, and have become myself an advocate within said camp to begin revisiting these things, thanks to my Lutheran brothers.
A thought of mine to which you might respond if you would like to help me understand further: We agree the Word preached is the power of God to save, and that the “decision” we make is really a response to the work of God through His Holy Spirit regenerating us; in other words, a monergistic salvation (hallelujah!).
Yet in considering these things, how does the Lutheran square John 3 wherein Jesus teaches that the Spirit goes about performing His work of granting new life, and how He does, no one knows – squaring that with this idea that upon each valid baptism, regeneration is accomplished, while at the same time each time the Word is preached (rather than poured), it does not accomplish regeneration? Is that too much question all at once?
In other words, the Holy Spirit works through the preached Word as He will, not inevitably regenerating all who hear – and so is it not the same principal at work in baptism? I’ll bet just about half the populations of the Northern European countries have been baptized as Lutherans, and I’ll bet no more than a few percent of them are regenerate believers in the Lord and His gospel.
These things militate a more Reformed reading of these texts, I believe… but I am asking in genuine good faith for your understanding, as I am new to Lutheran doctrine, and so need patient Lutherans to talk to me.
Thanks,
Justin
Justin, one correction to your paraphrase of John 3. Jesus says, “The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.” It doesn’t say that “so it is with the Spirit”.
Jesus makes amply clear (e.g. in John 15 & 16) that the Spirit is where the word of Jesus is. And the word is always in Baptism, since that’s what Baptism is: water & word.
One other point: Pr. Esget here isn’t espousing a particular Lutheran viewpoint or opinion. He’s just quoted Scripture (and then twisted it…). Which, to me, says rather a lot.
Your wider question is a good one, though, and deserves a detailed response (which I’m not in a position to do just now). Can you find a Lutheran pastor in town to pester? While you wait, just this one thing: if a whole load of babies are baptised, and not many of them believe when they are grown up, that tells us nothing about what happens in baptism. Almost always, it tells us an awful lot about what happens to the baptised when they are starved of God’s word after their baptism.
It’s like giving birth to a child and then not feeding to it. No good looking at the lifeless corpse and concluding that the birth didn’t work.
But, as I said, the question is a good one and needs a substantial answer.
Thanks for replying. In short, it seems unbiblical to the Reformed ear to hear of, basically, a conditional regeneration through baptism. Pardon the imprecise language here, please. If I am hearing you rightly, there are many who are called, regenerated, justified, and yet not ultimately glorified. This, as far as I can judge at this point in my education, is not a biblical category, and is why I’m hunting for Lutheran dialogue. I know you guys to be our brothers and sisters in the gospel, so I am trying to piece together your particulars so as to speak of your doctrines with knowledge, and not straw-men.
Grace,
-Justin
Sorry, forgot to check for replies – hence the delay.
I think there’s one category difference between Lutherans and Calvinists here: Lutheran theology rejects the perseverance of the saints. It is possible to fall away from faith, as numerous warnings in Scripture against falling away, both from Jesus and from the apostles, indicate. Hence, there is no contradiction in someone being regenerated but not glorified—because they died again.
I wonder… without looking up Reformed resources, what would be your best representation of the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints as taught by the Reformed? I ask because I am curious if we are thinking of the same thing. If this has become too involved for this comment section, I will respectfully move on, or perhaps invite you to my blog, where I recently made a couple of Lutheran-related posts. Either way works for me.
That’s at http://citizenofnewjerusalem.wordpress.com BTW.
Justin, some of the other comments have addressed part of your question. Here’s the key point: in Lutheran theology, the Sacraments are never without the Word of God. It’s the Word that always does the work: whether read/preached, or attached to water or bread/wine.
In the next day or two I’ll post Luther’s addendum to his revision of the baptismal rite, but the key thought there is that people (in the addendum he’s particularly addressing children) turn out badly after baptism because we didn’t pray for them. This raises a crucial matter, that baptism must not be thought of as a ritual that can stand alone, i.e., outside of the Christian life. Just as a child born but then starved will not survive, so a person reborn in Baptism but then starved of God’s Word and the Sacrament of the Altar is probably going to end up an unbeliever.
Article XIII of the Augsburg Confession sees all of the sacraments as creating or sustaining faith (together with the preaching of the Word). The important thing regarding baptism is the certainty it gives: a person who is baptized need not doubt if God loves him or pardons him, but ought to be comforted by saying, “Yes, I am a great sinner and not worthy of God’s grace, but I am baptized and thus can be certain that God calls me His own child.”
Well thank you for that follow up. What I am reading here I think makes sense to me. I see the passages in the Bible that seem to tie the sacraments to true efficacy in salvation, but as I search the entirety of the subject (of salvation), I see more clearly why the Reformed interpret the way they do, rather than the Lutheran. This is not to say, however, that I could ever call a Ln. a heretic or idolater – which Rev. Jonathan Fisk seems to believe we must by necessity do to you all (in his Worldview Everlasting videos). I simply do not see the heresy here.
We are actually preaching the same gospel, and almost the same means of that gospel being applied to the sinner; the same anthropology, the same doctrine of sin, etc. I will keep watching and reading you guys. I attended the local LCMS church last weekend, and without a hint of doubt took communion with the Lutheran folks. If this is the true body and blood of my Lord, so be it – I just do not see or understand it as such – but if it be so, I do not reject such a precious gift. God has the right to work through that means in such a way!
I hope to attend more services over there – good gospel richness!
(Not to be super long winded, but one more thing…)
Your last bit about certainty in baptism: isn’t that taken away on the back end by teaching that the grace and regeneration is “loseable”? I, for one, find a great reason for worship and celebration knowing that (per the Reformed interpretation) the regeneration of grace is the unchangeable salvation of a Savior who indeed said
Thanks for bearing with me,
JE
Justin,
The certainty is in God, who won’t go back on His promises. The uncertainty is in us, who have the capacity to reject His gifts. This is why the New Testament is so replete with admonitions not to turn back.
Mystandard answer to this truly important question is from Mark 16 (long ending!) “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” Absent belief, Baptism by itself doesn’t save anyone. From the parable of the Sower and the Seed we learn that not all seed that sprouts, survives. Sadly. The mysteries of God, means of grace, need to be treasured, given thanks, and told about in order to thrive. Just my $.02 worth.
an unworthy undershepherd in Christ,
Paul Becker +