by William J. Stewart
Acts 2:38 reads, âRepent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.â
Those who teach salvation by faith only say the word âforâ in Acts 2:38 means âbecause of.â Mr. Melton cites a Delton Haun tract which states âforâ is rendered âin order toâ or âuntoâ in some translations. Melton very quickly notes â…how the Church of Christ must refer to OTHER TRANSLATIONS in order to find support for their false teachings!â Melton, a staunch KJV only advocate, affirms, âWe will stick with the Book that God uses, the King James Bible.â The KJV came over 1,500 years after the original transmission of Godâs word. It was not the first translation of Scripture into another language, nor is it the first English translation of the Bible. I know that King James authorized the King James Version, but where has God ever stated that the KJV exclusively is His word in the English language? Since it is a side issue, weâll not take the time to address the fallacy of the KJV only position here, but I am happy to sit down and study with anyone who wants to dig into it further.
Returning to the discussion of Acts 2:38, Melton says, â…the term âforâ does not always mean âin order toââ¦â He gives Luke 5:14 as an example, where Jesus healed a leper and told him to go offer a sacrifice âfor your cleansing.â From this, Melton concludes: âthe word âforâ sometimes means âbecause of,ââ since the man had already been cleansed of his leprosy. While it is true heâd been healed, he had not yet been cleansed. Jesus commanded him to go make sacrifice according to the Law (Leviticus 14:4, 20-21). According to the Law, he would not be clean until after the sacrifices were made. When Jesus sent him to make sacrifice âfor your cleansing,â it was not because he was already cleansed; it was in order to be cleansed.
There is another problem with using Luke 5:14 to demonstrate âforâ can mean âbecause ofâ in Acts 2:38. The texts donât use the same Greek word for âfor.â The word in Luke 5:14 is peri; the word in Acts 2:38 is eis. Allow me to give an example that uses the same word; not just the same word, but the exact same phrase in the Greek. Matthew 26:28 reads, âFor this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.â The Lordâs blood was shed âfor the remission of sinsâ (eis aphesis hamartia). Will Melton or anyone else affirm that Jesus blood was shed BECAUSE we already had the remission of sins? Everyone understands His blood was shed UNTO the remission of sins. Peter says we are baptized âfor the remission of sinsâ (eis aphesis hamartia). There is no valid reason to make the phrase mean something different in Acts 2:38 than what it means in Matthew 26:28.
Melton tells us âAt the time of Acts 2:38, Peter didnât fully understand Salvation by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8-9).â Iâm not sure what to make of that statement. Is Melton conceding that Acts 2:38 teaches baptism for the forgiveness of sins, but saying Peter was wrong? Jesus promised Peter and the other apostles that the Spirit would guide them into all truth (John 16:13). That being the case, itâs hard to believe that Peter would teach something erroneous in Acts 2:38, as Melton suggests. He points to Acts 15:11 as evidence that Peter spoke something very different, that he no longer taught baptism for the forgiveness of sins. He quotes Peter as saying â…through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ we shall be savedâ¦â Friend, that is the epitome of dishonesty. Melton uses an ellipsis (â¦) to change the meaning of Peterâs statement. Here is the entire sentence: âBut we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they.â Who are âtheyâ? A look at the context of Acts 15 shows it is a discussion about whether the Gentiles were subject to Mosesâ Law. Peter said that âweâ (the Jews) shall be saved in the same manner as âtheyâ (the Gentiles). Neither Jew nor Gentile were subject to Mosesâ Law; both were to obey the gospel of Christ. That isâthere is only one gospel, and one plan to save people, whether Jew or Gentile, and it had nothing to do with adherence to the Mosaic law. Peterâs statement in Acts 15:11 does not negate the necessity of baptism which he taught is Acts 2:38. In fact, this same apostle would eventually write 1 Peter 3:21 (go take a peek).
Melton correctly states âthere are NO GENTILES in Acts 2:38.â Somehow, this leads him to believe that Acts 2 was âa NATIONAL situation concerning Israel, not an individual situation dealing with lost sinners.â Yet, in the same paragraph he tells us they were told how to be saved in verse 21, â…whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved.â The âwhoeverâ of verse 21 makes this an INDIVIDUAL, not a NATIONAL thing. How does one call on the name of the Lord? Mr. Melton didnât tell us. In Acts 22:16, Ananias urged Saul of Tarsus to become a Christian. Notice what he said: âAnd now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.â Ananias, who was commissioned by the Lord to teach Saul (Acts 9:10-18), associated baptism with calling on the name of the Lord.
Melton confidently affirms, âNo one in the chapter asks how to be saved.â He is careful to note the question in verse 37 was âwhat shall we do?â not âWhat must I do to be saved?â Semantics! In response to their inquiry, Peter said they needed to repent and be baptized. Since he doesnât like the answer, Melton refuses to believe the question had anything to do with salvation. However, he does point us to Acts 16:31 for âthe answer to THAT question.â OK, letâs go check it out. In Acts 16, there is a jailer in Philippi who is charged with keeping Paul and Silas secure. He fell asleep on the job, an earthquake happened which opened the doors and loosed their chains. When he woke up, he figured the prisoners had fled, and drew his sword to kill himself. Paul called out to stop him, for all the prisoners were accounted for. It is at this point the man asked, âSirs, what must I do to be saved?â (Acts 16:30). In verse 31, he was told, âBelieve on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.â Melton wants you to stop there. May I encourage you to keep reading? Verse 32, âThen they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house.â This man didnât know who Jesus wasâhe was a Gentile jailer in Philippi. He needed to be taught. Verse 33, âAnd he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and al his family were baptized.â Having learned about who Jesus was, the jailer did two things: 1) he washed their stripes (repentance, he was sorry for the role he had in their suffering), and 2) he was baptized. He did the same thing that Peter told the crowd in Acts 2 to do, repent and be baptized. Could it be that he heard the same message from Paul and Silas that the Jerusalem crowd heard from Peter?
Mr. Melton says âWE were told to be baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost in Matthew 28:19,â and sets that against the baptism âin the name of Jesus Christâ in Acts 2:38. His conclusion? The latter is âobviously a special baptism for the first century Jews who had rejected Christ. They were told to be baptized in His name to show that they now RECEIVED Him.â Meltonâs argument is nothing more than posturing. It is wild, baseless speculation to mislead the reader. Perhaps it would be helpful to acknowledge what âin the name ofâ means. Itâs not that difficult. A police officer cries out, âStop, in the name of the law.â He just cited his authority. James 5:10 speaks about the prophets âwho spoke in the name of the Lord.â Colossians 3:17 reads, â…whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesusâ¦â It is a statement of authority. For more examples, look at Acts 4:7; 5:40; 1 Corinthians 5:4; 2 Thessalonians 3:6. Melton tries to make a WE (Gentiles) vs THEY (Jews) contrast between Matthew 28:19 and Acts 2:38. No such contrast exists. Whether one is baptized âin the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spiritâ (Matthew 28:19) or âin the name of Jesus Christâ (Acts 2:38) or âin the name of the Lordâ (Acts 10:48) or âin the name of the Lord Jesusâ (Acts 19:5) doesnât matter. They key is the acknowledgement of the authority of God. It is not about a baptismal formula to be recited, but an authority to be acknowledged.
Again, Melton sets Godâs word against itself. This time, Acts 2:38 and Acts 10:44. He acknowledges in Acts 2 the Jews received the Holy Spirit AFTER they were baptized. He then jubilantly explains why the Spirit came upon the believing Gentiles BEFORE baptisms in Acts 10. Melton poses the question: âWhy didnât Peter tell the Gentiles in Acts 10:44 the same thing that he told the Jews in Acts 2:38? Answer: GOD DIDNâT GIVE HIM A CHANCE! God went ahead and sent the Holy Spirit before anything was said about baptism, because He didnât want anyone confusing baptism with Salvation.â Itâs sad that Melton wants us to believe that Peter, who was under the direction of the Holy Spirit, was actually working against God, and that God had to thwart the preacher before he said anything about baptism. What a sad and absolutely inaccurate explanation of what occurred in Acts 10.
The conversion of Cornelius and his family was special. This was the first time the gospel was preached to the Gentiles. Some miraculous things took place in order to bring it to fruition. Had the angel not appeared to Cornelius (Acts 10:3-6), he would never have known he wasnât serving God faithfully, nor would he have known to send for Peter. Had Peter nor fallen into a trance and received the vision of the sheet let down from heaven (Acts 10:10-16), heâd not have learned at that time the Gentiles were not unclean (Acts 10:28, 34-35), and he would not have gone to Corneliusâ house. Had the Spirit not spoken to Peter and told him to go with them men at his door (Acts 10:19-20), his doubts may have caused him to refuse. The vision dealt with animals, not people, and Peter was still mulling over the meaning of it in his mind (Acts 10:17, 28). And had the Spirit not fallen upon the Gentiles, those who went with Peter (Acts 10:23, 45), who did not see the angel that appeared to Cornelius, nor the vision of the sheet seen by Peter, nor heard the voice of the Spirit which commanded Peter, may have remained in doubt whether the Gentiles truly could receive the gospel or not. The Spirit falling upon the Gentiles âastonishedâ those of the circumcision who believed, and now, they would be witnesses to the fact that God had received the Gentiles. It wasnât just Peterâs word. Take any of these miraculous events away from Acts 10, and the gospel either doesnât go to the Gentiles, or there is a huge cloud of doubt concerning it.
Melton would like us to believe that the Spirit coming upon the Gentiles in Acts 10 is evidence they were saved before being baptized. Again, the text reveals the purpose of the outpouring of the Spirit upon Corneliusâ household. It was not given to confirm that the Gentiles were already saved, it was given to convict the mind of the Jews who were present, so they would not stand in the way of the Gentiles receiving salvation. What the Gentiles received in Acts 10 was a miraculous measure of the Spirit, not the indwelling of the Spirit. The indwelling of the Spirit is given to those who have obeyed the gospel (Acts 5:32; Ephesians 1:13-14). Speaking in tongues is not evidence of salvation, as some assume. That is a common charismatic doctrine. Will Melton join the Pentecostals in affirming that we must speak in tongues to demonstrate we are saved? In Numbers 22:28, â…the LORD opened the mouth of the donkey, and sheâ¦â spoke. Godâs Spirit fell upon Balaamâs donkey, and it spoke in tongues! Does that mean it was a Christian donkey? Speaking in tongues is not necessarily proof of salvation.
Though there are some unique things in the conversion account in Acts 10, it still fits the pattern found elsewhere in the book of Acts. The gospel was preached to them, they believed it, and they responded in faithful obedience. In Acts 10:6, the angel to Cornelius that Peter âwill tell you what you must do.â What did Peter tell Cornelius to do? The same thing he told the Jewish crowd at Pentecost, â…he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lordâ (Acts 10:48).