A few weeks ago, we began a short study of what might be called “alleged Bible contradictions,” or what we might also call “difficult Bible questions.” We noted that there are many in the world who ask questions of us, and that some of these people are not sincere in their desire for Scriptural knowledge, but are instead seeking to “prove” that the Bible contains contradictions and “unanswerable questions.” As we noted in that previous class, if the Bible can be proven to contain contradictions or questions without answers, then it can be said that the Scriptures are fallible and, therefore, cannot be the Word of God.
It must be clearly understood that the Bible does not contradict itself, nor does it contain questions without reasonable answers. Our premise is this: since the Bible is the Word of God, then it is infallible and completely trustworthy as our guide to salvation and to how we must live our lives before God. Let’s look at a few more of these questions which are asked by those who seek to undermine the inspiration of the Scriptures.
There are two passages of Scripture, in particular, which are used by many denominational teachers to “prove” that baptism is not an essential condition for the remission of sins. The first, is Ephesians 2:8-9: “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” Then, comes Titus 3:5, which says in part, “Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us…” and since most denominational teachers stop at this point, we will do the same (in the interests of their consistency) and come back to this point later in our class.
We don’t deny the fact that the Bible teaches that man cannot be saved by acts of “human merit.” This does not mean, though, that all works, of every kind, are excluded from the process which leads to salvation. In fact, there are works which are described as “works of God,” in other words, works which God has commanded, which are very clearly included in the plan of redemption. One of these is the act of “belief” — “This is the work of God, that you believe on him whom he has sent” (John 6:29).
The expression “work of God” means “the works required and approved by God.” If we look at the teachings of the Bible carefully, we discover that baptism is not a work of human merit, but is instead, an act which has been commanded by God (Acts 10:48) “for the forgiveness of sins”(Acts 2:38) — and the “resurrection unto life” which is accomplished through baptism (Rom. 6:4) is a “working of God,” not one of human design or human ingenuity. Note in your Bibles what is written in Col. 2:12: “…having been buried with him in baptism, wherein ye were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.” Baptism is a “working of God,” and it is a gross perversion of the Scriptures to teach that it is a work of human design.
Let’s look at another perversion of the doctrine of baptism for the remission of sins. Acts 2:38 states in apparently unequivocal language that in order to receive the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit, one must do two specific things in conjunction with each other: one must repent and one must be baptized. Unfortunately, there are those who feel as if they must engage in a wrestling match with the Scriptures because they refuse to be bound by any kind of work that must be done in order to obtain salvation.
Many years ago, I was amazed by the statements made by a certain preacher for the Baptist church in regard to Acts 2:38. I guess I was naïve, and lacking in Bible knowledge (being fairly new to the faith) because I had never heard this particular argument against baptism for the remission of sins until I heard it made in a debate with a faithful preacher for the church of Christ. I’m sure you are probably all familiar with this specific objection.
The argument is made on the word “for.” In the Greek language it the word e-i-s, pronounced “ace” or “ice.” In Acts 2:38 this Greek preposition is translated “for the remission of sins” in the KJV and “unto the remission of sins” in the ASV. Therefore, in the American Standard it would read, “Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” But, some make this argument: “Eis can mean ‘unto’ or ‘in order to obtain,’ but it can also mean ‘because of.’” So, they say, “In Acts 2:38 Peter is really saying ‘Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ because of the remission of your sins.’” In other words, they are saying that one should be baptized because his sins have already been forgiven.
There are many contradictions inherent in this belief, but two in particular are very obvious. First, we noted earlier that one who desires to receive remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit must do two things in conjunction: repent and be baptized.
So, if the objection made to baptism is valid, then the exact same objection must be made to repentance. In other words, one need only REPENT because his sins have already been forgiven. Here’s a question which must be asked: if one’s sins have already been blotted out, of what use is repentance? Repentance itself is a turning away from one’s past way of life. If that way of life no longer exists in the sight of God, then exactly what is one turning away from? On top of this, we must look at the clearly stated purpose of repentance as recorded in Acts 3:19, which is a parallel passage to Acts 2:38: “Repent ye therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out…” It is apparent, then, that one must repent in order to have one’s sins blotted out! If that is true (and it is), and if it’s true that repentance and baptism are BOTH to be accomplished in order to obtain remission of sins, then it must also be true that one must be baptized IN CONJUNCTION WITH repentance in order to have one’s sins blotted out.
There is one other factor that must be considered here. Sometimes, we are fortunate enough to have a verse elsewhere in the Bible which is almost identical to one which is under consideration as potentially contradictory. If you’ll turn in your Bibles to Matthew 26:28, we’ll see how helpful such a verse can be in this kind of situation. Remember that the stated argument is that Peter said that one must “repent and be baptized because our sins have already been forgiven.” Read what Mt. 26:28 says: “For this is the blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” These last five words are an exact match in the Greek language to what we find in Acts 2:38 —“for the remission of sins.” The question must be asked, first of all, “Are these two statements identical in the Greek?” The answer must be, “Yes.”
If these statements are identical (and they are), then we must ask another question: “Must they be interpreted the same way?” If one wishes to maintain consistency and avoid Biblical contradiction (and remember that we were striving earlier to afford these objectors the benefit of whatever doubt may exist in their minds, so let’s do the same here), then the answer must be, “Yes, they must be interpreted in the same way [that these objectors interpret Acts 2:38].” So, let’s then read Mt. 26:28 in the same way as some would read Acts 2:38: “For this is the blood of the new testament, which is shed for many because their sins have already been forgiven.”
I’m sure you see the problem faced by those who maintain that baptism is not for obtaining remission of sins. At the time Jesus uttered these words, He had not yet faced the ordeal of the cross, nor had He shed His blood, but was instituting the memorial we know as the Lord’s supper — the eating of unleavened bread and the drinking of the fruit of the vine — symbols of His body that was given and His blood that was shed for the ultimate forgiveness of sins. The argument that baptism is only necessary to demonstrate our belief in the fact that our sins have [already] been forgiven falls completely apart in the face of the huge contradiction which appears in comparing Acts 2:38 with Matthew 26:28.
In order to maintain consistency with their translation of Acts 2:38, those who argue against baptism for the remission of sins must translate Matthew 26:28 in exactly the same way. It should be obvious to anyone that Jesus was not saying that He shed His blood because our sins were already forgiven, and several Bible verses will prove this point. Colossians 1:20 says, “And, having made peace through the blood of his cross…” Ephesians 1:7 says, “In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins…” Hebrews 9:22 says, “…and without shedding of blood is no remission.” Hebrews 10:10 says, “By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.” Then we read in 1 Corinthians 15:3, “For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures…”” Finally, read the words of Peter himself in 1 Peter 1:18-19, “Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot…”
These are only a few examples which demonstrate that the death of Jesus on the cross and the shedding of His blood on that same cross were absolutely essential if anyone was to hope to have their sins forgiven: “peace through His blood…”; “redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins…”; “redeemed…with the precious blood of Christ.”” Let us emphasize the point that forgiveness of sins was not possible until Jesus shed His blood on the cross; sins could not have been forgiven prior to the shedding of His blood. Therefore, Jesus did not say that His institution of the Lord’s Supper was done because sins had already been forgiven. What He did say was this: “this fruit of the vine represents the blood that I will shed on the cross…shed blood that will open the way for mankind to have the opportunity to have sins remitted.”
So, we must ask then, if Matthew 26:28 must read “for the remission of sins” or more precisely, “in order to receive the remission of sins.” and if we must render both Matthew 26:28 and Acts 2:38 in exactly the same wording in order to be consistent and avoid Scriptural contradiction, then how can anyone deny that baptism is “in order to receive the remission of sins”? Truly, both repentance and baptism must be accomplished by anyone who desires to obtain forgiveness of sins, and any argument which does not agree with this fact cannot stand up to the scrutiny of sincere Bible study.
Let’s look at one other instance where some might argue against not only baptism, but against any kind of obedient act which might lead to remission of sins.
In Acts 15, at the conference in Jerusalem, we read where Peter testified that God used him as an instrument for the conversion to Christianity of the Gentiles. In connection with this, Peter declared that the Lord “made no distinction between us (the Jews) and them (the Gentiles), cleansing their hearts by faith” (Acts 15:9). There are many religious people who assume that this means that salvation is given upon the basis of faith alone, in spite of the other sections of Scripture which teach that there are acts of obedience which we must perform in order to obtain salvation from sins. Is there a contradiction here? Is salvation by faith alone, or are there other conditions of pardon from sins?
First, let’s look at Acts 15:9, where we must note that the translation from the Greek text in the King James Version is incomplete. The translators of the KJV left out a very important word, and that word is the definite article “the”. This verse reads in the Greek, “cleansing their hearts by the faith.” So, what is under consideration here is not faith or simple belief, but the faith or the gospel system of faith. Note also that Peter is making a comparison here between the Jews and the Gentiles in terms of how man is saved from sins. In using the term “the faith,” Peter was describing the gospel system as opposed to the system contained in the Law of Moses!
To emphasize the meaning of this term, “the faith,” all we must do is look at a couple of passages which explain it. First, in Galatians 1:23, we read where Paul talked about his journey into Judaea, and the fact that those who were members of the Lord’s church did not know Paul when he came there: “But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed.” In this verse, we see that Paul’s use of the term “the faith” describes the body of believers and saints who were members of the body of Christ—the church of Christ—who became such by their obedience to the doctrine which was taught by those in “the faith.” Note also, what Jude wrote in verse 3 of his epistle: “Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.”
So, this term, “the faith,” can be seen as applying to the body of doctrine and instruction which, when obeyed, makes one a Christian. Note also what Peter wrote in 1 Peter 1:22, that the soul is purified by“obedience to the truth.” Let’s also compare what Peter said in Acts 15 with what Luke wrote regarding the conversion of the Gentiles in Acts, chapters 10 and 11. It is there that the inspired historian tells us that several conditions were essential for the remission of past sins. First of all, notice that the three men who came from the house of Cornelius to seek out Peter made a simple statement in regard to how they were told that they would be saved: “Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved”(Acts 11:14).
It was the words of Simon Peter to this household, it was the teachings of Peter, the teachings concerning “the faith” which would be the essential instrument in bringing about the salvation of this Gentile household. Look, then, back in Acts 10:42-43: “And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead. To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.” So, we see that Peter would preach to these Gentiles, and that belief in the words of Peter concerning “the faith” was one of the essentials of this salvation and remission of sins.
Look next in Acts 10:47-48: “Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Spirit as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.”
If we couple these verses with what is recorded in Acts 2:38, that repentance is a prerequisite to baptism, then we see that these Gentiles were not just saved by “faith” or belief in Jesus Christ, but that they were saved by hearing the words of Peter concerning “the faith,” or system of belief which was taught by the apostles, and that their salvation hinged on their belief of these words, coupled with their repentance and baptism into Christ.
As in our last class on this subject, it’s my hope that each of us will spend more time in study of God’s Word, so that we might be better able to teach the gospel, bringing those who are lost into the fold of the Lord’s body. I enjoyed Lin Aker’s expository comments on the third chapter of 1st Peter last Sunday evening. His comments on 1 Peter 3:15 were especially helpful to all of us, in that we are to always be ready to give an answer…for the reason of the hope that is in us. We do have that hope of eternal life within us, and it is imperative that each of us be ready to defend the reasons for that hope, and I think I’m not off the mark in saying that those who argue that there are contradictions are in reality attempting to destroy our hope by fostering doubt in our minds regarding the inspiration of the Scriptures. In closing our class this evening, let me encourage each of us to be more diligent Bible students, and let’s try to encourage all our brothers and sisters to do the same.