Does Acts 2:38 Teach that Baptism Saves?
A closer look on why the answer is no
Years ago my former pastor was preaching through Acts. As he made his way through the text he arrived at Acts 2:38. It’s always interesting to see how preachers navigate this passage because it can be confusing and perhaps seems contradictory to other texts of Scripture.
But as my pastor carefully pointed out, it’s not.
Acts 2:38 reads, “And Peter said to them, ‘Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’”
The knee-jerk reaction is to say that one must repent of their sin and be baptized in order to receive forgiveness of sins; and if so, it would be a clear indication that baptism is required for salvation. However, the Bible is clear elsewhere that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone.
But I’m getting a little ahead of myself, so let’s explain the text. The Greek word eis translated “for” in this passage can mean several different things. It doesn’t always mean “in order to get.” This is where my pastor’s sermon comes back into play. He noted that when he would go preach in prisons it made him think about what prisoners are in for, and the way we think about that. They usually say, “I’m in prison for . . .”
Of course, that’s not them saying what the result was. They’re saying what they did in order to be put in prison. It’s a clear distinction, and a very important one here. The word ‘for’ can be translated “because of” in Acts 2:38. It is because of the forgiveness of sins that we repent and are baptized.
Our salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. Baptism is not necessary in order to receive the forgiveness of sins. We only need to look to the thief on the cross as an example. If baptism is required for salvation, the thief on the cross is in Hell. Of course, Jesus himself proclaimed the thief would be with him in paradise.
Another facet to this conversation is the lackadaisical way many Christians approach baptism. Because we believe baptism isn’t required for salvation, we therefore paint it as unimportant. That couldn’t be further from the truth. Though baptism is not salvific, it is indeed extremely important and direct evidence of your obedience to the Lord. You could argue that if a professing Christian isn’t concerned about being baptized—biblically by immersion!—then they should examine their faith to see if it’s genuine. A Christian should be excited to obey the Lord in baptism.
That’s the opposite side of the spectrum. The other side is claiming baptism is necessary to be saved. The middle is the sweet spot of not labeling baptism as salvific, but recognizing its importance and as a step of obedience unto the Lord.
The point, though, is to understand that Acts 2:38 is not a proof text for baptismal regeneration (that baptism saves). There is no magic in baptismal waters. Yes, there are one or two more Bible passages that appear to convey that baptism saves, but again, if you read them in context and dive into the deeper meaning, we will understand that it’s not proclaiming that baptism saves.
All that’s required for salvation is laying down our pride, our egos, our supposed strength and willpower. We must humble ourselves, admit we need a Savior, and receive Christ’s finished work by placing our faith in his life, death, and resurrection. In other words, we must repent of our sins and believe in the gospel (Mark 1:15).
My pastor teaches the same. Good to see alignment.
From an article I wrote defending Baptismal Regeneration:
Mantey, driven by his opposition to Baptismal Regeneration (BR) as works-based salvation, proposed a way to reinterpret Peter’s explicit instruction by suggesting that the preposition εἰς in this verse might have a causal usage, rendering the phrase “because of the forgiveness of sins.”9 Since Mantey introduced this idea, many opponents of BR have embraced it as a way to avoid the cleansing efficacy of baptism in this passage. However, Mantey’s interpretation has been widely discredited.
Even Wallace, an opponent of BR, acknowledged that Mantey’s “ingenious solution of a causal εἰς lacks conviction.”10 Similarly, the translators of the NET Bible noted, “Although a causal sense has been argued, it is difficult to maintain here.”11 Ultimately, Mantey’s interpretation fails the test of time. There is no clear evidence that this view existed before Mantey…
https://saintsandsociety.substack.com/p/yes-baptism-saves