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:

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.

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.

I’ve long been a reader of Al Maxey’s Reflections. I don’t always agree with Al, but he does make me think. One of his latest articles, however, was a real disappointment to me. I felt the need to analyze it a bit here, to get help from others as I try to see if I’m quarreling with his conclusion or how he arrived at that conclusion.

When I saw the title of Reflection #507, I knew what Al was going to say at the end of his article. Al spends a lot of time debating with some very conservative members of the Church of Christ; when I saw that he had written on: “Wash Away Your Sins:
Reflective Study of Acts 22:16,” I knew that he would somehow find a way to make the Bible say something these brothers would react to. And I was right.

In looking at this article, and at this passage, it’s important that we notice that Al basically lumps the theological world into two camps:

1. Those who believe in “water regeneration,” the concept that the mere act of being baptized brings salvation;
2. Those who believe in salvation by grace through faith.

That’s a useful technique for winning a debate. You state your position as being in contrast with a distasteful position (and in concordance with something attractive). Then you merely say, “You believe what I believe or you believe that abomination.” It’s called a false dichotomy.

It’s not a useful technique for Bible study nor theological understanding. I’m convinced that this basic error is what throws Al’s article out of alignment. I’ll look at the article more in depth, but I want to talk about this idea.

If someone truly believes that water itself cleanses of sin, they are as mistaken as anyone in the Old Testament who thought that blood did the same thing. Just as “it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins” (Hebrews 10:4), so it is impossible for water to take away sins. However, I’m convinced that just as God established, through his grace, a means through which men could obtain forgiveness through offering sacrifices, I’m convinced that God offers salvation to those who are willing to be baptized.

Each of these acts requires faith. Each depends upon the grace of God. Neither will accomplish anything if done as a work instead of as an act of faith. But belief in baptism as a part of the obedient faith that God looks for is not the same as belief in water regeneration.

There’s a bit of Platonic dualism that sees the act of believing as somehow more spiritual than other acts of faith. That dualism leads to a rejection of anything physical, seeing the physical as inferior to the spirit. The argument goes that God in the Old Testament wanted physical worship and in the New Testament wants spiritual worship. That argument not only misunderstands Old Testament worship (which was very concerned about the inward man), it also misrepresents what the New Testament says.

I’ll spend some time over the next few days looking at what Al had to say, for I think it’s very important. For now, I merely want to make this point: believing that faith must be obedient is not the same as believing that man can save himself via good works. Believing that baptism is something that God has offered to man as a means of obtaining forgiveness is not the same as believing that mere immersion in water washes away sins. Believing that there is regeneration at the time of baptism is not the same as believing in water regeneration.