Hyper-Sacramentalism and Acts 10
"[Jesus] commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead. All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name." While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. Then Peter said, "Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have." So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days" (Acts 10:42-48)
Since the hyper-sacramentalists rely on the "clear teaching" narrative of Acts as normative, what will they do here? What was Peter's specific message? "Everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name." There's that phrase "through his name" that we were recently told by one hyper-sacramentalist always refers to baptism. But what is the stated condition of forgiveness here? "Believe in him." And what happened as a result of their belief in him? "The gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God." And at what point was baptism introduced here?
Was it before or after the reception of the Holy Spirit? "Then Peter said, 'Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.'"
When Peter recounted to the Jews what happened at Caesarea (Acts 11), here is what he said:
"As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning. Then I remembered what the Lord had said: 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' So if God gave them the same gift as he gave us, who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could oppose God?" (Acts 11:15-17)
And what was the Jews' response to this? "When they heard this, they had no further objections and praised God, saying, 'So then, God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life'" (v. 18).
The Jews concluded that these Gentiles were recipients of eternal life. But on what basis? Peter had not mentioned their baptism. All he mentioned was that the Holy Spirit had come upon them. The Jews therefore saw the reception of the Holy Spirit as proof of forgiveness of sins, and we know from Acts 10 that happened before their baptism.
And if baptism did not effect repentance in Acts 10--11, then what did it effect? Peter sees it as entirely appropriate to baptize them ("Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have"). Why? So that they could receive the Holy Spirit and forgiveness of sins? No; but because they had already received the Holy Spirit and forgiveness of sins. What then was the purpose of baptism in Peter's mind? It could not have been that he saw it as an instrument of forgiveness. The text renders that reading impossible.
The problem with the hyper-sacramentalists' reading of passages like Acts 2:38 is that it doesn't work out their way in real-life examples.
Since the hyper-sacramentalists rely on the "clear teaching" narrative of Acts as normative, what will they do here? What was Peter's specific message? "Everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name." There's that phrase "through his name" that we were recently told by one hyper-sacramentalist always refers to baptism. But what is the stated condition of forgiveness here? "Believe in him." And what happened as a result of their belief in him? "The gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God." And at what point was baptism introduced here?
Was it before or after the reception of the Holy Spirit? "Then Peter said, 'Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.'"
When Peter recounted to the Jews what happened at Caesarea (Acts 11), here is what he said:
"As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning. Then I remembered what the Lord had said: 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' So if God gave them the same gift as he gave us, who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could oppose God?" (Acts 11:15-17)
And what was the Jews' response to this? "When they heard this, they had no further objections and praised God, saying, 'So then, God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life'" (v. 18).
The Jews concluded that these Gentiles were recipients of eternal life. But on what basis? Peter had not mentioned their baptism. All he mentioned was that the Holy Spirit had come upon them. The Jews therefore saw the reception of the Holy Spirit as proof of forgiveness of sins, and we know from Acts 10 that happened before their baptism.
And if baptism did not effect repentance in Acts 10--11, then what did it effect? Peter sees it as entirely appropriate to baptize them ("Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have"). Why? So that they could receive the Holy Spirit and forgiveness of sins? No; but because they had already received the Holy Spirit and forgiveness of sins. What then was the purpose of baptism in Peter's mind? It could not have been that he saw it as an instrument of forgiveness. The text renders that reading impossible.
The problem with the hyper-sacramentalists' reading of passages like Acts 2:38 is that it doesn't work out their way in real-life examples.
posted by NA at 5:10 AM
<< Home