I’m spending a few days analyzing an article by Al Maxey in which he attempts to show that Acts 22:16 doesn’t teach that forgiveness of sins is connected to baptism.

Al spends some time discussing the grammar of the Greek text. This part of the article is useful and informative, though Al presents the material in a selective way. When you are a debater or a lawyer in a trial case, you don’t want to present evidence that fails to support your view. Al carefully avoids scholars that disagree with his conclusion, though he unwittingly includes a rather damning quote from A.T. Robertson.

Robertson was a devout Baptist who made no attempt to hide his personal beliefs, especially regarding baptism. Note his comments on Acts 2:38:

One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not. My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission. So I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received.

Robertson lays out the grammar, then discusses his personal interpretation. He does a similar thing when speaking of Acts 22:16. Note that the only thing he says about the grammar in the quote that Al uses is that the grammar leaves the door open to connecting baptism with forgiveness of sins… a statement that Al seems unwilling to make! The fact that Robertson, who is loathe to make room for any arguments supporting the importance of baptism, would make such a statement is powerful indeed.

Besides F.F. Bruce, Robertson is the only scholar quoted. Everett Ferguson wrote a 900-page book on baptism in the early church; this work has been recognized as the definitive work on baptism. A thorough study would at least reference his views (like where he says “In Acts 22:16, the calling on the name is clearly done by the one being baptized”—p. 197) Beasley-Murray’s work is a classic on the subject of baptism. He wouldn’t be referenced either, for he sees Acts 22:16 teaching that baptism is a means of “prayer for acceptance with God and full salvation from God.” When you’re debating, you don’t quote material that doesn’t support your view. When doing Bible study, however, it seems that you should do exactly that, or at least acknowledge its existence.

So while Al’s statement that scholars tend to agree with his view of the construction of the sentence in Greek in Acts 22:16 is technically true, it needs to be tempered by the fact that many scholars reach a very different conclusion based on that fact. It also needs to be seen that the understanding of the grammar doesn’t change the interpretation… which is why none of the scholars Al quotes say anything of the sort. [Interesting to note that the Bible in Basic English, however, disagrees with Al on how to translate this verse: “And now, why are you waiting? get up, and have baptism, for the washing away of your sins, giving worship to his name.” That’s an interpretation, like that done by The Message, which also disagrees with Al]

Let’s not get lost in the smoke. The discussion of how to diagram this sentence in Greek is interesting, but it doesn’t argue for or against the view that sins are forgiven at the time of baptism.