Response to Matt Slick on Acts 2:38, Part 1

While discussing the issue of baptism with several friends online, some have posted an article by Matthew Slick of CARM entitled  "Baptism and Acts 2:38".

Slick made a lot of fallacious and strawman arguments, that will be addressed here and in future articles, against baptismal regeneration as held to by Lutherans as well as by historic Christianity.

The format in this response  will be that Slick's each of statements from his article will be in quotes followed by my response.

 "Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." (Acts 2:38).

"Acts 2:38 is one of the more controversial verses in the Bible regarding baptism and whether or not it is the requirement for salvation.  Some use this verse to say that one must be baptized in order to be saved.  But when you look at the verse, and others, you will see that it does not teach baptismal regeneration, that baptism saves, or that baptism is necessary for salvation."


And I like to point out the biblical data gives us the exact opposite conclusion from what the article is claiming.

"First of all, rarely is doctrine ever made from a single verse."

And Slick starts out with a complete and utter strawman. No one, who holds to baptismal regeneration, base their view on that one passage alone, and he ought to know that if he is an apologist. Many other texts are cited including 1 Peter 3:21, Mark 16:16, Romans 6:1-4, Colossians 2:11-13, Galatians 3:27-29, Ephesians 5:25-27, etc.

Simply making a spurious claim as he did to make the view look easily refutable as if it is based on one verse actually says more against his position than what he is trying to refute.


"We need to look at all of what God's words says about a subject in order to accurately understand what it teaches."

Exactly, and there are many baptismal texts that consistently speak of baptism in a saving manner.

"In Acts 2:38 the main verb is metanoesate (change mind), the aorist direct imperative (a command) of metanoeo which means to repent (change mind).  This refers to that initial repentance of the sinner unto salvation.  The verb translated "
'be baptized' is in the indirect passive imperative (a command to receive; hence, passive voice in Greek1) of baptizo, which does not give it the same direct command implied in "repent.' The preposition "for' in the phrase 'for the remission of sins' in Greek is 'eis,' unto or into, and it is in the accusative case (direct object).  It can mean 'for the purpose of identifying you with the remission of sins.' It is the same preposition we find in 1 Cor. 10:2 in the phrase 'and were baptized unto Moses.' Note that both contexts are dealing with baptism and identification.  In 1 Cor. 10:2 the people were baptized or spiritually identifying themselves with the purposes and vision of Moses.'"

Slick doesn't realize this, but he actually proved baptismal regeneration with his arguments.

Consider first he said the clause  "be baptized" is in the passive sense to mean receive. He didn't even deny the word "for" really does mean for (many Baptists argue it really means "because of" to get around the text). So if he said (correctly) to be baptized is in passive sense to mean receive and if he connected that  to for forgiveness of sins, he can't then turn around and then claimed as he did "be baptized" in passive sense once one repents isn't for forgiveness of sins.

His suggestion was that it can be mean for the purpose of identifying with forgiveness of sins. He tried to use 1 Corinthians 10:1-4 where the same word is used in regards to them being baptized unto Moses. Problem is unto and for still mean unto and for, and when connected to the phrase "forgiveness of sins," you end up with the statement "be baptized unto forgiveness of sins" or "be baptized for forgiveness of sins."  Such an argument actually proves what baptismal regenerationists historically assert: one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

He said 1 Corinthians 10:1-4 means spiritually identified themselves with purposes and visions of Moses. If we apply that line of argument to Acts 2:38, be baptized would be identifying spiritually with forgiveness of sins.

So that proves be baptized isn't for forgiveness of sins? Here's the problem. If we accept his argument, that actually results in digging a bigger hole for his position.

It is not  spiritually identified with forgiveness that Christ gives if it is not salvation by grace through faith itself. When we are saved, we are joined to Christ and we are identified spiritually with Christ, as Galatians 3:27-29. (And that text indeed does say, baptism through faith joins us to Christ and clothes us with Him.)

His arguments so far from refuting baptismal regeneration actually validated it.

"Repentance, therefore, is presented as identifying an individual with the remission of his sins even as baptism following repentance provides an external identification visible by others."

Slick said in the previous paragraph  the clause "be baptized" is in passive sense for or unto forgiveness of sins as meaning to be spiritually identified with forgiveness of sins. Now he said baptism isn't to identity spiritually with forgiveness of sins  (contradicting the last sentence of the previous paragraph especially) but external identification for others to see. Besides contradicting everything he just said, the text does not  (nor any other text) say baptism is for external identification visible by others.

Perhaps, he realized the logical implications of what he said in the previous paragraph would validate baptismal regeneration so has to deny what he just said.

But that is exactly the problem when he can't take the text at face value. He was forced to try use arguments to get around it, even if the arguments are self-contradictory, self-refuting, and even times have implications that actually go against what he is trying to argue.

" That is why baptistheto (let be immersed) is in the passive voice indicating that one does not baptize himself but is baptized by another usually in the presence of others.  Repentance, however, is an act taking place within a person's heart as the Holy Spirit moves in the sinner."

There are several problems: 1) not every baptismal examples in Acts are done in the presence of others, 2) the fact baptism is passive reception actually refutes his arguments of baptismal regeneration adding works to our salvation, 3) what follows repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins in Acts 2:38 is the actual reception of the Holy Spirit so his claim the Holy Spirit does not work via baptism is refuted there, as is dividing the water of baptism from the Holy Spirit.

The rest of his article will be dealt with in future responses but let's add the fact to be baptized is in the passive for reception removes it from being our work (so any argument used to that effect that to hold to baptism saves adds works to our salvation is null and void on that basis). We are the receivers. It is faith that receives forgiveness of sins.

Ever wonder why the text doesn't say repent and believe but repent and be baptized?

Faith itself is passive reception of forgiveness of sins Christ won for us. Since baptism is itself passive receiving, that makes it faith itself that passively receives Christ's forgiveness and the Holy Spirit as a result as well.

Here we stand.