Bernie L. Gillespie © October 13, 1999 All Rights Reserved

And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. Acts 22:16 KJV

Robert Lowery asked the question in song: "What can wash away my sin?" He answered his own question with his statement of faith put to verse: "Nothing but the blood of Jesus." Elisha Hoffman posed it another way:

Are you washed in the blood, In the soul-cleansing blood of the Lamb?

Are your garments spotless? Are they white as snow? Are you washed in the blood of the Lamb?

These Gospel songwriters all praised God for the cleansing power of Jesus’ blood. There are thousands who sing these songs weekly from many Christian traditions because of a near universal faith in the power of Christ’s blood to wash away sins. However, the divisions start when different groups attempt to explain how the blood of Jesus affects this washing. How do we get the washing that the Cross provides?

One interesting question addressed in the Bible college I attended was, "When is the blood applied?" Behind this was the assumption that Jesus purchased salvation two thousand years ago on the Cross, but, since everyone is not universally saved, each individual had to appropriate or apply that salvation in some manner. Some say that Jesus’ work on the Cross only made salvation possible. This implies there remains something that we as individuals must do to acquire that salvation. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that saving grace is infused in baptism. This a practical and tangible way to connect the work of Jesus to the individual’s life. The Reformers and those of the Reformation tradition sharply disagreed, asserting that the saving blood of Jesus is effective through faith in Jesus, and not by any human means or physical device.

There are Protestant groups who perpetuate the Roman Catholic position by teaching that the blood of Christ is not effective for forgiveness until one is baptized. The United Pentecostal Church and many other Oneness Pentecostals teach that sins are only initially remitted or washed away by baptism in the Name of Jesus. The basic claim is that sins are remitted at water baptism when the Name of Jesus is said upon the moment of immersion. And conversely, sins are not remitted or forgiven until this actual, specific event. Therefore, all who have faith in Christ alone as their righteousness, their Redeemer and their Savior, but have not received such baptism are not forgiven and cannot claim cleansing through the blood of Christ.

One of the primary Scripture texts used to support this notion is the text quoted at the beginning of this article: Acts 22:16. I want to cite a series of quotations that typify how UPCI writers interpret this passage:

"A church, denomination, organization or assembly which refuses to take the name of the Lord Jesus Christ in Christian baptism could never have a place in His Bride." [Frank Ewart, The Revelation of Jesus Christ, p. 42, Ewart was one of the chief architects of the New Birth doctrine and a primary leader in the Oneness Pentecostal origins and development. His influence is probably as significant as any other person in Oneness Pentecostal history.]

There is remission of sins in no other name but the name of Jesus (Acts 4:12), therefore, baptism cannot possibly signify that the believer receives remission of sins, unless the name of Jesus is used as the baptismal formula; neither can we be thereby identified with Him in His death, burial, and resurrection, unless the name of Jesus is called upon the one being immersed into the watery grave, the penitent also calling on the name of the Lord (Acts 22:16.) [Oscar Vouga, Our Gospel Message, St. Louis: MO, Pentecostal Publishing House, p. 18. Vouga was one of three representatives for the Pentecostal Church, Inc. in the forming of the UPCI in 1945.]

Acts 22:16 says, And now why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." God washes away sins at baptism when we call on His name. "But ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God" (I Corinthians 6:11). Many commentators see this verse as another reference to the washing of sins that occurs when one is baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. [David K. Bernard, The New Birth, (Hazelwood, MO: Word Aflame Press, 1986), p. 132.]

Water baptism is for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38), and sins are remitted (forgiven) in the name of Jesus Christ (Luke 24:47; Acts 4:12; 10:43; 22:16). . . At water baptism we call on the name of Jesus for the remission (forgiveness) of sins and the name of Jesus is called upon us. [JLH, The Biblical Experience of Salvation, (Hazelwood, MO: Word Aflame Press), Tract #6150.]

The blood of Jesus Christ is applied only through water baptism in the name of Jesus. Also see 1 John 5:8 and Acts 22:16. [Lewis Manuel, Water Baptism according to the Bible and Historical References, (Hazelwood, MO: End-Time Ministries), p. 5.]

In Acts 2 the ‘epi’ is deliberately used to indicate that the use of the Name is the MEANS (sic) to which ‘remission of sins’ should be obtained. This preposition is also used in the expression ‘calling on the Name of the Lord; (see Acts 2:21; 22:16) and the reference in Acts 22:16 is certainly to the baptismal formula. [John Paterson, The Real Truth About Baptism in Jesus’ Name, (Hazelwood, MO: Pentecostal Publishing House, 1953), p. 27.]

The church administers water baptism. Water baptism is administered by immersion in water in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. Only the church is commissioned to do this. Therefore, the church has the power to bring life eternal to men and women or to withhold life from them. [Ralph V. Reynolds, Cry of the Unborn, (Hood River, OR: Alpha Bible Publications, 1991), p. 73.]

The phrase "wash away thy sins" is said to be affected only by water baptism accompanied by the spoken name of Jesus. There is a genuine effort made to side-step baptismal regeneration by saying that the water is not the means of the cleansing. It is said that it is faith in the Name of Jesus which is the means of washing. At the same time, I have read other statements made by these same teachers which claim that it is obedience to the command to be baptized in Jesus Name which affects the remission:

Baptism is an act of obedience to God by a person who believes in the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. The obedience is in order to receive remission of repented sins (Acts 2:28). [The Truth About Water Baptism, Tract, Overseas Ministries Pub. of the United Pentecostal Church International.]

The best example of this is found in the writings of David K. Bernard. He clearly equates salvation with obedience. Notice how "saving faith" is redefined into saving "obedience":

Saving faith is acceptance of the gospel of Jesus Christ as the sole means of our salvation and appropriation (application) of that gospel to our lives by obedience to its requirements. . . .We appropriate or apply that gospel to our lives by repentance (death to sin), water baptism (burial), and the Spirit baptism (new life in Christ), thereby identifying personally with the redemptive work of Christ. We obey the gospel by fulfilling these commands. [David K. Bernard, The New Birth, (Hazelwood, MO: Word Aflame Press, 1986), pp. 61,83.]

Bernard appears to be aware of the criticism of this position and attempts to salvage a commitment to "salvation by grace and faith alone:"

Opponents of this view usually protest that it makes salvation dependent on water baptism, thereby negating salvation by grace and faith alone. Of course, without repentance from sin and faith in Christ’s sacrifice, water baptism is valueless. There is no saving power in the water itself or in man’s actions at water baptism. The birth of water is not the human act but God’s act in remitting sin. Water baptism in and of itself is not a saving act, and the birth of water is totally dependent upon God’s grace. Titus 3:5 demonstrates that one can give God all the credit for salvation and still emphasize the role of water baptism in the new birth. Throughout salvation history God has always required obedience to His Word as a part of faith, and this does not contradict His plan of salvation by grace through faith. [David K. Bernard, Ibid., p. 93]

This attempt to maintain salvation by grace through faith while also requiring obedience to the command of baptism proves too much about Bernard’s and the UPCI’s position. If the water of Baptism is ‘valueless’ without faith, then what is the value of the water to salvation? Doesn’t this address the heart of the matter? Why not simply have faith in Christ for salvation without the water? The reason for the UPCI is that the water is part of the salvation process, even if they do not admit that. This is because of their deviation from the teaching of Justification by faith as taught by the Apostle Paul and renewed in the teaching of the Reformers in the Reformation. They seem oblivious to the very heart of the Reformation controversy and what was at stake there. The Roman Catholic Church has always held that salvation is by grace through faith in Christ. They also have always believed that obedience is essential to salvation. They would be in total agreement with Bernard’s theological assumptions:

Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith. [Vatican II]

"Faith justifies, because Baptism has justified." and further, "Baptism is expressly said to effect the first justification." [John Henry Newman, Lectures on Justification, (New York: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1900) pp. 260-63.]

The grace of the Holy Spirit has the power to justify us, that is, to cleanse us from our sins and to communicate to us "the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ" and through Baptism. [Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1994]

What the Roman Catholic Church does not believe is that salvation is by grace ALONE, through faith ALONE, in Christ ALONE. On the other hand, the Reformers would not admit to any obedience as a means of appropriating God’s grace or salvation:

Rather the question is only about the relation of faith and works, whether anything is to be ascribed to works in justification. Since the apostle [Paul] does not ascribe anything to them, he without a doubt ascribes all to faith alone. [Ewald M. Palass, What Luther Says, (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959), p. 707.]

We compare faith to a kind of vessel; for unless we come empty and with the mouth of our soul open to seek Christ’s grace, we are not capable of receiving Christ. From this is to be inferred that, in teaching that before his righteousness is received Christ is received in faith, we do not take the power of justifying away from Christ. [John Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, pp. 748-49.]

We rest simply in the obedience of Jesus Christ, which is imputed to us as much to blot out all our sins as to make us find grace and favor in the sight of God. [The French Confession of 1559]

This means that not even the smallest form of obedience on our part could bring us to salvation. Faith alone means without any obedience, even to baptism. However, at the council of Trent the Reformers were anathematized for holding this conviction:

If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema. [Canon 9 of the Council of Trent, Session 6.]

It would seem that Bernard and the UPCI are, in many ways, on the Roman Catholic side of the Reformation with respect to salvation and baptism.

As I have read many earlier and contemporary Oneness Pentecostal writers, there is an inconsistency about how important each element - the water, the Name of Jesus, the faith or obedience of one baptized - is to the process of cleansing from sin. This phenomenon itself points out the problems of the Oneness Pentecostal teaching about forgiveness of sins. As you read UPCI authors it is evident that this issue is not settled and is yet troublesome to some in the UPCI, even to the point of obscuring and confusing classical biblical doctrines:

You might say, but what position does that put me in? If I have accepted the forgiveness of my sins and I have been redeemed by the blood, what is my status before God? I have forgiveness of sins, and Ephesians 1:7 and Colossians 1:14 state that we have redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of sins. Am I ready for the rapture? Am I in the church? Am I a part of the body of Christ? You have to find other scriptures to tell you whether you are in the body of Christ or not. . . . You could say, what is my position? Am I a son of God? Yes, you are a redeemed son of God without the gift of the Holy Ghost. I did not say born again. I said redeemed. Because you are a son of Adam, who was the son of God, you are redeemed back and have your sins forgiven." [Kenneth V. Reeves, The Lost Sons of God, (Granite City, IL: Inspirational Tapes & Books, 1990), p. 40-1.]

However, the question remains, what is the experience evangelicals may have without being baptized in Jesus (sic) Name and baptized with the Holy Ghost? Certainly they are not born again. Certainly they are not members of the body of Christ. Certainly they are not in the church and ready for the return of the Lord. [Ralph V. Reynolds, Op. Cit., p. 99.]

One of the leaders of the Oneness Pentecostal movement and a major figure in the merger that formed the UPCI in 1945 was W. T. Witherspoon of Columbus, Ohio. He wrote this in an article entitled, "Latter Day Truths:"

They that believe not the Gospel are lost. They that are not taught concerning the Bible New Birth but have thoroughly repented and lived what they know of the Christian life will be on His right hand at the white throne judgment not in the rapture, nor in Heaven, but will be delegated to the kingdom "prepared from the foundation of the world." Those who have been baptized in Jesus’ name and have not received the Holy Ghost are in the womb of the church and must be brought forth. Those that have been baptized with the Holy Ghost and do not have the light on Jesus’ name will be found in the household of Cornelius and must be commanded to be baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus. Those that believe the message and have been baptized in Jesus name but have never repented will find themselves in the company of Simon the sorcerer, having no part or lot in the matter, and they must thoroughly repent. [Pentecostal Herald, Feb. 1947.]

Many other writers could be cited, but these express the various and sometimes conflicting conclusions about the state of the baptized among Oneness Pentecostals. I believe this teaching, that remission of sins is affected only through baptism, leads to a confusion of a thousand qualifications. I mean that both the sinner and the Christian become confused as to who or what saves them. In contrast, the biblical teaching that Christ washes away our sins as an act of grace as we trust in him, is sublime and without a maze of qualifications.

The question before us is: "How did Paul ‘wash away’ his sins?" Does Acts 22:16 prove that Paul washed away his sins by being properly baptized? Should we interpret this verse to mean that Paul needed to be baptized in order to have his sins forgiven? Is that how Paul received the forgiveness of sins? Is this what Paul believed or taught in his epistles in the New Testament?

First, notice very carefully the words of the text. Ananias said "arise," next he said "and be baptized," then, "and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." It is not worded, "be baptized to wash away thy sins." If that is what Ananias meant he could have easily said it that way. But he placed the conjunction "and" between his verbs "arise," "be baptized," and "wash." If one attributes the washing to being baptized one could as well attribute it to the command to arise. Certainly this is not what is intended. The washing away of sins is more defined by the "calling on the name of the Lord." The meaning of this phrase would give us a clearer understanding of how Paul’s sins were washed away.

The word "calling" (epikaleosamenos) comes from the root word (epikaleo) which means "to use an attribution in speaking of a person." (Louw-Nida Lexicon) This word is used in Acts 7:59 for the act of praying to Jesus by Stephen as he was dying. He spoke the name of Jesus as direct address in praying to Jesus. It is used in Acts 9:14 of Christians as those who call on the name of the Lord. They spoke the name of Jesus in confession, prayer and worship (and Baptism) as addressing the Person of Jesus and not technically as a formula. When Paul appealed (epikaloumai) to Caesar (Acts 25:11,12,21,25) he called upon the name (title) of Caesar to invoke the authority of the whole person. It was not the mere use of the name, as an incantation or conjuring formula. It was a demand for the right to due process as a Roman citizen. Paul was already a citizen, therefore he was not asking for the right to become a citizen. He assumed that, as a Roman citizen, he had the rights of that citizenship which were embodied in Caesar. This is what is meant by the teaching of Paul: "And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him." (Col. 3:17) This was written to the Colossians in the context of worship. This phrase is used to identify those who have faith in Jesus as the object of their adoration, worship and hope.

These words "calling on the name of the Lord" occur first in Acts chapter two in Peter’s Day of Pentecost sermon. Peter quotes from the prophet Joel (2:32) and applies Yahweh’s last days promise of salvation for Israel to salvation in Jesus Christ. This expression "call upon the name of the LORD," in the Old Testament, is shorthand for placing exclusive faith in Yahweh, the One God of Israel, for mercy and salvation.

Remarkably, Joel’s words are quoted again in another place in the New Testament. It is found in the Apostle Paul’s own writing in Romans 10:13. This is most pertinent, because we have a direct interpretation of what it means to "call upon the name of the Lord" by Paul himself. Here the person told (in Acts 22:16) to call on the name of the Lord to wash away his sins gives us his understanding of what that meant in doctrinal terms. We cannot establish doctrine on an historical narrative (such as the account of Acts) without also supporting it clearly in the teaching portions (epistles) of Scripture. Since it is Paul who "called on the name of the Lord" and it was his sins which were "washed away," no one could explain that better than he.

In Romans ten, Paul says this:

That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth you confess and are saved. As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame. For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile – the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." [Romans 10:9-13 NIV]

Paul here clearly states that one washes away their sins by believing the Gospel of Christ. The calling on the name of the Lord of Acts 22:16 is the "confess with your mouth . . . and believe in your heart," of Romans 10:13. Paul did not express any connection between washing and Baptism. He claims that his sins were forgiven and thus washed away when he believed and confessed the Gospel of Christ. How could he have neglected such an important necessity as Baptism if it was the key to forgiveness? It would be a major omission at this point. The best and most reasonable explanation is that Paul never believed that Baptism was the means of forgiveness. Otherwise, he has misled all the Roman churches (and the Church throughout history) by teaching them that they are saved and justified when they believe alone.

To further clarify Paul’s understanding of salvation he mourns the disbelief and rejection of his own people:

Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge.  Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness. Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes. [Romans 10:1-4 NIV]

What is written here is not to take away from the importance of baptism. I want to make in unequivocally clear that I believe that baptism is necessary for every Christian. It is not optional. It is a command of our Lord and His Apostles that each and every Christian should be baptized. What I am saying is that baptism is not the means to salvation. Faith alone in Christ alone is the means of salvation to everyone. Baptism is necessary for all Christians, but is not necessary for sinners to be saved. This distinction must never be obscured. We must not have a sacrament receiving the faith that should be exclusively placed in Christ the only Savior.