Calling on the Name of the Lord in Acts 22:16

Let’s take a little more time looking at Al Maxey’s article on Acts 22:16. Again, let me say that Al is a very good thinker and an able scholar. My disagreement with Al on this article in no way indicates a condemnation of Al personally nor disagreement with everything he writes. I just think his debating spirit took over in this piece.

Much of what Al is dealing with is an abuse of the concept of obedient faith. I don’t deny that this concept can quickly turn into legalism if misapplied, just as a belief in “faith only” can become lawlessness if misapplied. The existence of abuse of a concept doesn’t negate the original concept. Just because some have viewed baptism as a legalistic rite doesn’t mean that everyone who believes in the necessity of baptism sees it as such. There can be a proper understanding of baptism which places it within the realm of obedience rather than merit-earning work.

That’s the Achilles’ Heel of Maxey’s arguments. Though he tries to build his arguments around grammar and translation, his real objections are theological. The grammar doesn’t tell us one way or another how to interpret this verse. Note that Al makes the statement:

The second view of how Acts 22:16 might be acceptably understood and applied is also grammatically possible, and has the advantage of being far more consistent with the NT doctrine of salvation by grace through faith!

In other words, all the discussion of grammar was the smoke screen that I pointed it out to be in yesterday’s post; basically Al is saying, “I want Acts 22:16 to say a certain thing, and since it’s possible in the grammar, I’ll make it say that.” Note that he quotes a bunch of Bible translations that neither support nor refute the view that sins are forgiven in baptism; the way they are presented, one would think that they are strengthening Al’s position, when they actually say nothing one way or the other.

Scholars like Everett Ferguson and G. R. Beasley-Murray, among many others, have analyzed this text and agreed that sins are forgiven through the calling on the name of the Lord, but have observed that, in context, this calling on the Lord is shown to happen in baptism. Al makes it sound like only a few crackpots out there hold this view when he says:

Some of those who have embraced the first theory will try to explain this away by saying the “call” is made in the act of “baptism” (i.e., our baptism being our call unto Him; a plea or appeal God acknowledges by washing away our sins). In my view, that is a gross manipulation of both Truth and the Text.

(emphasis in original article)

No need to deal with a strong argument held by multiple Greek scholars, including the two men widely recognized as experts on the subject of baptism. Just say that in your opinion they are manipulating the Truth and the Text. Folks, if for no other reason, that outrageous statement should lead you to recognize that Al is merely arguing here. There are people that he disagrees with on other issues and that has led him to disagree with them on this one as well.

There are scholars who have correctly understood the Greek text (which Al does a good job of explaining the structure of) and deal with this whole verse in its context. They have laid out a middle view, one that neither makes baptism a legalistic work nor makes it an irrelevant piece of this verse. Al dismisses their view by accusing them of neither respecting the Truth nor the Text. That’s not responsible teaching. It’s not even a worthy debate tactic.

What Al can’t explain is why baptism is mentioned at all in this text. Think about it. There is urgency here. “Why do you wait?” Wait to do what? Get your sins washed away. How? If calling on Jesus’ name is unrelated to baptism, why is baptism even mentioned here? If baptism is merely an outward sign of a cleansing that has already taken place, why mention it before the cleansing? None of that makes sense.

It reminds me of what a friend of mine commented about a journal that was popular in the 80s and 90s: “Basically they’re excited because the Bible finally says what they always wanted it to say.” Let’s not get so caught up in our arguments that we seek to change what the Bible says. Just because others have overemphasized baptism, let’s not try to exorcise it from the texts where it plays a prominent role.

The water isn’t magic. God can forgive sins whenever and however He chooses. For reasons I don’t fully understand, He chose to make sacrifices a part of the forgiveness process in the Old Testament. For reasons I don’t fully understand, He chose to make baptism a part of the forgiveness process in the New Testament. The power isn’t in the water, it’s in the faith behind baptism. It’s not the dunking, it’s the calling on His Name at the time of baptism that washes away sins.

It’s ironic that as many leaders in the evangelical world embrace the concept of baptism in a greater way, leaders in the Church of Christ have become embarrassed by our traditional view.

I’m not embarrassed. I believe that the Bible teaches that part of man’s response to God is being baptized in water for the forgiveness of sins. One verse that supports that view is Acts 22:16.

8 thoughts on “Calling on the Name of the Lord in Acts 22:16

  1. K. Rex Butts

    I am enjoying this series of post you are doing. Even though we are part of a church tradition that holds a very high view of baptism, there is still so much more we can learn.

    Any ways, you wrote… “Just because some have viewed baptism as a legalistic rite doesn’t mean that everyone who believes in the necessity of baptism sees it as such. There can be a proper understanding of baptism which places it within the realm of obedience rather than merit-earning work.”

    This is where the grammar from some other passages, most notedly, Romans 6.3-4, can help us. The verb “baptize” is often spoken of in the passive voice when speaking about what we have done. It is so because baptism is not our work but God’s work in us. What the Romans passage tells us is that we surrender our life to death with the crucified Christ, allowing God to raise us to life in the resurrected Christ. That is how baptism still belongs in the realm of obedience without it becoming a merit-earning work.

    The problem in our own fellowship is that historically throughout the twentieth century, baptism seem to be spoken of as what we do rather than what God does in us. Because of that, our critics rightfully called us out for a merit-earning salvation. To correct that, we need not toss baptism out the door. What we need is to have our language about baptism actually match the language of scripture, portraying baptism as the work of God in Christ.

    Grace and Peace,

    Rex

  2. Tim Archer Post author

    Rex,

    On several occasions in recent years, I have publicly described my journey on this matter. I’ve told audiences: “I used to believe that baptism was a work that I did. Then I came to see that baptism wasn’t a work, but part of obedient faith. Now I again believe that it’s a work… just not mine. The only one ‘working” in baptism is the Holy Spirit.”

    Grace and peace,
    Tim Archer

  3. Jerry Starling

    The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (II.688-9) concludes about 1 Peter 3:31 that baptism is “Not the putting away of outward filth, but prayer to God for a good conscience.”

    This fits very well with Acts 22:16 being the washing of sins by calling on the name of the Lord in baptism. In fact, it is consistent with every reference in the New Testament that speaks of the purpose of baptism.

    TDNT also comments:

    Perhaps the author avoided an expression like “the cleansing of the heart from sins” in order to avoid a magical conception of the operation of baptism and in order to stress thefact that the new purity is a gift of God’s grace.

  4. laymond

    Tim, it seems these topics are catching, Royce turned Jay’s blog into one of discussing the importance of baptism. I will just copy and past my answer over there .

    laymond, on October 30th, 2011 at 8:22 am Said:

    Jay, Unless I have over looked some action, that Jesus did, this is the very first (recorded) step Jesus took on the way to his ministry.

    Mat 3:13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.
    Mat 3:14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
    Mat 3:15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer [it to be so] now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.

    NIV
    Jesus replied, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.” Then John consented.

    NLT
    But Jesus said, “It should be done, for we must carry out all that God requires.*” So John agreed to baptize him.

    Mat 16:24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any [man] will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

    Jay, did Jesus say “follow me“, except for being baptized, or did he say you must be baptized,?
    It is in the book in black and white, whether you believe it is the truth or not, is up to you.

    laymond, on October 30th, 2011 at 8:37 am Said:

    Jay, that is the great problem with liberalism in religion, when once started down that slippery slope, it is easier to just turn loose and slide, than to claw your way back up.
    If one does not stop to think, and dig their heels in, the ride becomes faster and more exilerating , and getting into reverse is impossiable.

  5. laymond

    Jay’s answer to me, Jay Guin, on October 30th, 2011 at 8:58 pm Said:

    Laymond,

    You make a classic argument, which proves too much. (That which proves too much proves nothing, is the old saying — and it’s a good one.) By your reasoning, if I make any mistake at all, I’m damned. If Luke 6:46 damns all who err on baptism, then I suppose it damns those who err on the number of children an elder must have and whether an elder must have children and whether adult children who leave the faith disqualify a man from the eldership. Obviously, Jesus teaches no such thing, or else the standard would be doctrinal perfection.

    Indeed, Jesus is speaking much more of what we do than what doctrine we believe: “do not do.” Therefore, by your reasoning, we are damned by every sin. (There are those who’d agree.)

    The Greek is ambiguous, but “do” can certainly take a continuous sense — and that fits the context very well. Jesus is speaking of the nature of the heart and behavior of the disciple, not damning all who sin even a single time.

  6. laymond

    laymond, on October 30th, 2011 at 10:54 pm Said:

    Jay, I don’t know the exact number of sins that is required to send you to “Hell” but I believe it is one unforgiven sin, one that is committed and never asked forgiveness for, because you see no reason to ask forgiveness for a sin, that you don’t see as sin.

  7. Buzz

    Isn’t it great to be a part of a fellowship which does not lock us in to precise doctrinal statements!? We just need to be sure to make an effort to respect each other’s views as we grow together toward a better understanding of God’s word.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.