Modern evangelical hatchet job on Acts 2:38

A straightforward reading of Acts 2:38 would require affirming baptism as means of saving grace.

The text, after all says,

“Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

So how do so many evangelicals today justify reading that text as showing baptism is our work we do after we are saved and forgiven?

The most common argument tends to be when the text says “for the forgiveness of sins,” they argue that the word “for” can mean “because of.” (John MacArthur comes to mind.) Never mind for the sake of this article the fact that no Bible translation sees it that way and no one historically thought to argue that way from the text.

The ones making this very novel argument would say that the text is really saying be baptized because of forgiveness of sins you already got as now public act of obedience to show your salvation to others.

Note the inconsistency here. They argue the word “for” means “because of” in referring to baptism but never to the repent part. But the text says to repent and be baptized, for the forgiveness of sins, not just be baptized for the forgiveness of sins.

They have no problem saying repent for the forgiveness of sins as meaning unto and for purpose of receiving the forgiveness of sins. Their issue is with the idea of being baptized unto forgiveness of sins. They argue that baptism must be our work or act of obedience so therefore it can’t be means of receiving forgiveness of sins lest we fall into works based salvation. (That is why they take many other baptismal saving passages and say it’s waterless Spirit baptism.)

They love the analogy you take Tylenol because of a headache not unto a headache. But it is a silly untenable analogy for this reason: a headache isn’t a cure. Forgiveness of sins is a cure. So you would take it to “cure” a headache. By their logic, forgiveness of sins would be like a disease rather than the cure!

Ultimately, there is a serious side effect to them twisting the heck out of this and other passages.

If we go by what they claim, the text would read “repent to be forgiven then because of that do your work of baptism. And you will receive the Holy Spirit.”

Let that sink in.

If we go by their argument, your own act of obedience as public testimony ends up being prior to even you receiving the Holy Spirit.

They always ignore the part that says “and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” that follows and results from “repent, and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins” in the text. (Not to mention such clause kills their waterless Spirit baptism claims.)

But regardless, their forced reading of the text has them having a work they do done even prior to having the gift of the Holy Spirit. And that, friends, is the very works based salvation they falsely accused us of based on their false view that baptism is a human work we do.

Here we stand.