Without exception, everyone who reads these words, and who believes the Bible, accepts that the
blood of Christ was shed for the remission of our sins. Before we discuss the relation of
baptism to the remission of sins, let's ask ourselves why we universally agree Jesus' blood was
shed for the remission of our sins? Wasn't it because the Lord Himself said in (Matthew
26:28),
28 "For this is my blood of the new
testament, which is shed for many for
the remission of sins."
Certainly, we can all accept this plain statement from the lips of our Lord Himself. Why then can MANY not accept the words of His apostle Peter, when in (Acts 2:38), Peter used identically the same language in the Greek about baptism:
38 "Then Peter said unto them,
Repent, and be baptized every one of
you in the name of Jesus Christ for
the remission of sins, and ye shall
receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." (KJV).
If we can't believe Peter in (Acts 2:38) when he said baptism was for the remission of sins, why would we believe Jesus when He used the same words to say His blood was shed for the remission of sins? If on the other hand, we believe Jesus when He said His blood was shed for the remission of sins, why shouldn't we as well believe Peter when he used the same words to say baptism was for the remission of sins?
If someone should argue that "for" or "unto" means "because of" in (Acts 2:38), i.e., we are to be baptized because our sins have already been remitted, why would not identical language mean that Jesus shed His blood because our sins had already been remitted, and therefore the blood of Christ has nothing to do with the remission of sins? Surely, we can see that whatever purpose Jesus accomplished when He shed His blood, the same purpose is accomplished by the baptism of a penitent believer in the name of Jesus Christ.
Interestingly, it is by no means unusual to meet denominational preachers who have had a smattering of exposure to the Greek language who insist the word translated "for" or "unto" means "because of" in (Acts 2:38). However, when pressed for a New Testament translation that so translates the word, they universally meet with failure. Denominational SCHOLARS generally will not sacrifice their scholarship in favor of their denominational doctrine...
G.R. Beasley-Murray, Principal of Spurgeon's College in London, later Senior Professor at
Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville, KY, wrote a modern classic, "Baptism In The New
Testament." He gives chapters which thoroughly discuss baptism in the Gospels, in Acts, in
Paul's writings, and in other apostolic writings. In his introduction, Beasley-Murray said:
"This book is intended to offer a Baptist contribution to the discussions on baptism that are taking place throughout the Christian world. But the indefinite article should be observed; the impression must not be given that my interpretations are characteristic of Baptist thought generally. At most it can be claimed that they represent a trend gaining momentum among Baptists in Europe. I have striven to interpret the evidence of the New Testament as a Christian scholar, rather than as a member of a particular Christian Confession."
(G. R. Beasley-Murray, Baptism In The New Testament, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1962, pp. v-vi.)
From his chapter on baptism in Acts, Beasley-Murray said: Consequently, baptism is regarded in Acts as the occasion and means of receiving the blessings conferred by the Lord of the Kingdom. Admittedly, this way of reading the evidence is not characteristic of our thinking, but the intention of the author is tolerably clear. (Ibid., p. 102)
Whatever the relationship between baptism and the gift of the Spirit elsewhere in Acts, there appears to be no doubt as to intention of Acts 2:38; the penitent believer baptized in the name of Jesus Christ may expect to receive at once the Holy Spirit, even as he is assured of the immediate forgiveness of his sins. (Ibid., p. 108)
From his chapter on baptism in the apostolic writings, concerning (Romans 6:3-4), Beasley-Murray said:
We that are Baptists have largely ignored this aspect of Pauline teaching; even when we
have heard it we have hesitated to accept, partly no doubt because of the one-sided emphasis
it has often received but partly also because we have not known how to deal with it. But
misapplication of truth must never be permitted to make us insensitive to it. (Ibid., pp.
142-143) (Bolding & Underlining, mine, KET).
Some concluding statements were:
In light of the foregoing exposition of the New Testament representations of baptism, the idea that baptism is a purely symbolic rite must be pronounced not alone unsatisfactory but out of harmony with the New Testament itself. Admittedly, such a judgment runs counter to the popular tradition of the Denomination to which the writer belongs...
The extent and nature of the grace which the New Testament writers declare to be present in baptism is astonishing for any who come to the study freshly with an open mind. ...the "grace" available to man in baptism is said by the New Testament writers to include the following elements: forgiveness of sin, (Acts 2:38) and cleansing from sins, (Acts 22:16, 2 Corinthians 6:11); union with Christ, (Galatians 3:27), and particularly union with Him in his death and resurrection, (Romans 6:3ff, Corinthians 2:11f), with all that implies of release from sin's power, as well as guilt, and the sharing of the risen life of the Redeemer, (Romans 6:1-11); participation in Christ's Sonship,(Galatians 3:26f); consecration to God, (1 Corinthians 6:11), hence membership in the Church, the Body of Christ, (1 Corinthians 12:13, Galatians 3:27-29); possession of the Spirit, Acts 2.38, 1 Corinthians 6:11, 12:13), and therefore the new life in the Spirit, i.e., regeneration Titus 3:5, John 3:5); grace to live according to the will of God, (Romans 6:1ff; Corinthians 3:1ff); deliverance from the evil powers that rule this world, (Co 1:13); the inheritance of the Kingdom of God, (John 3:5), and the pledge of the resurrection of the body, Ephesians 1:3f; 4:30). (Ibid., pp. 263-264)
Beasley-Murray stated his conclusion in a chapter entitled "Baptismal Reform and Church
Relationships":
First, there ought to be a greater endeavor to make baptism integral to THE GOSPEL. It is taken as axiomatic amongst us [Baptists - KET] that the proclamation of the Gospel consists of making the redemptive acts of God in Christ known and calling for faith in Christ as the due response; baptism is then a proper subject for exposition in the inquirers' class, along with instruction as to the nature of the Church, of worship, of Christian obligation in the Church and to the world, etc.
Peter's response, however, to the cry of his conscience stricken hearers on the Day of Pentecost was not "Repent and believe" ,but "Repent and BE BAPTIZED"! (Acts 2:38). Naturally faith was presumed in repentance, but Peter's answer told the Jews how to become Christians: faith and repentance are to be expressed in baptism, and SO they are to come to the Lord. Baptism is here a part of the proclamation of Christ. In an Apostolic sermon it comes as its logical conclusion. An effort ought to be made to restore this note in our [Baptist - KET] preaching. (Ibid., p. 393)
Thus, we believe the blood of Jesus was shed for the remission of sins, because the Bible says it. Likewise, we believe baptism is for the remission of sins, because the same Bible says it in identically the same words.
Mr. G.R. Beasley Murray is exactly correct when he admits to the fact that in addition to "baptism for the remission of sins," there is likewise a need to study "the nature of the church, worship, and the Christian's responsibility to the church and to the world." I agree. I would add as well that they must study the organization of the church in the same process, as well as the names by which the church and her members are called in Scripture. If they will continue to accept only what the New Testament teaches about the church, they will likewise learn that it is composed of the saved, those who have been "reconciled unto God by the cross (blood) of Christ", and that this reconciliation is said to be "in one body.." (Ephesians 2:13-17; 3:21; Acts 2:41,47; Colossians 1:13-14).
You see it isn't sufficient to have been "baptized for the remission of sins," the Mormons do the same, but their concept of the New Testament relationship that is called by Christ "My church" as well as their understanding of God Himself is faulty. If one studies carefully each case of conversion in the acts of the Apostles of Christ, one will learn that there are several pre-requites to membership in Christ's blood bought church in addition to Faith, repentance, and immersion for forgiveness of sins! I guess what I am saying, is, one does not become a part of the "bride of Christ" accidentally, it is a conscious decision made when one has been properly discipled or taught (John 6:44-45; John 10:16; Matthew 28:18-20; Romans 6:16-18; 1 Corinthians 15:1-4). Have you "obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine as taught by inspired men in order to be a part of the body of Christ? If not, we would be happy to assist you in any way we possibly can. Call Kenneth E. Thomas
(309) 347-5645-Home. (309) 347-3582-Office.
This is a modified version of a lesson by a fellow gospel preacher, Mark Copeland. Ken