(This posting is an adaptation of the author’s thesis submitted to the faculty of the Nairobi International School of Theology towards the fulfillment of a degree in Master’s in Divinity)

Introduction

The fight against faulty interpretations of the Holy Scriptures in the form of exposing and excoriating these false teachings has always been and will continue to be the one defensive and therefore noble war that true, biblically grounded Christians will aggressively have to participate in. This is in light of the fact that false teachings neither ended with the apostolic era, nor terminated with the age of the church Fathers; but on the contrary, have persisted on to our contemporary Christian dispensation. Both biblical and traditional history bear witness to the fact that certain saints did not tolerate false teachings, but instead, they chose to clamp down against them in counter-reaction. The Apostle Paul, for instance, waged this war so furiously as is evidenced by the words he wrote to Timothy: Their teaching will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have wandered away from the truth. They say that the resurrection has already taken place, and they destroy this faith of some (2 Tim. 2:17-18; N.I.V. all references are NIV unless otherwise noted). Similarly, the early Church Fathers, consumed with the zeal to pass on the Christian doctrine untainted, fought against the likes of Arius. It will thus be careless and unrealistic of us to imagine that our contemporary age would be spared from such deceptive teachings. In fact, even as the writer is penning down these words, quick observation reveals that the city of Nairobi has now become a reservoir of false teaching. A specific wave of unbiblical, untruthful, incorrect scriptural exegesis is successfully sweeping with it hundreds of young men and women, who apparently are oblivious and totally blinded to the subtleness of these teachings. Men of God in the past took the responsibility of shielding the biblically ungrounded Christians from the destructive impact of false teaching. All through the ages the “baton of Scriptural defense” has been successfully passed on. The question to us would be this: are we in today’s world willing to take the baton? For the writer of this paper the answer to this question is definitely in the affirmative.

The Background of the Nairobi Christian Church (N.C.C)

The Nairobi Christian Church came into existence in 1985. The church is the first of its kind in Kenya and was planted through the missionary efforts of Mike Taliaferro, the leader of the so called Boston Church of Christ (Kip Mckean, “Revolution through Restoration”, Upside Down, p. 14). This mother church, the B.C.C., is itself a breakaway of the Church of Christ in the United States–a breakaway that was initiated by Kip Mckean in 1975, who was a fresh graduate from the University of Florida. As Mckean himself excitedly states in the church’s journal, On June 1 1979, history was made as some would-be disciples gathered on a Friday night in the living room of Bob and Pat Gempel (this couple are part of the leadership now). Our collective vision was a church where not only the college students were totally committed, but also the teens, singles, marrieds and senior citizens. This was a radical concept not witnessed in any other way or movement in my experience to this day (Ibid, p. 7). And so this particular night witnessed the inception of this B.C.C. which, today, has spread all over the world (Ibid., p. 12). The following outlines how a N.C.C. member would approach and finally absorb a person into the church. Firstly, one would be approached and then a conversation would be elicited. Secondly, during the conversation, it would be brought to one’s attention the name of the church and direction to the meeting place. Thirdly, when one arrives, he or she would be bundled up in what is called the “Equipping class”. The very first lesson in this class is geared to convince one that the N.C.C. is the one and only true church. To qualify this claim, various selected teachings from other churches or denominations are discredited, e.g., praying to receive Christ, speaking in tongues etc. The goal is to render the N.C.C. unique. As is pointed out by Larson, this is just one of the many psychological forms of “cult coercion”. Exclusivity, which is what this is, has been defined by Larson as the perpetration of the idea that “those outside are viewed as spiritually inferior, creating, therefore, an exclusive and self-righteous ‘we’ versus ‘they’ attitude” (Larson, Cults, p. 17). Fourthly, one is paired up with a discipler whose role is to introduce and teach the various lessons that constitute the Church’s teachings. Throughout this “discipling”, a “warning gong is continuously sounded”–a warning against questioning the teachings and interpretations of the discipler. Quoting Cannon on this, he says: Essentially, the framework of the B.C.C. discipling system is one of total submission to authority. Any new convert must submit himself to one who is “more mature in the Lord”, that is, one who has been in the movement longer than the convert. The submission is absolute. (Cannon, “Has Mind Control Come to Beantown?”, Personal Freedom Outreach, p. 5). This is what Larson would call “unquestioning submission”, which in his words is “the acceptance…achieved by discouraging any questions…that may challenge what the leader(s) propagate” (Ibid., p. 18). The danger in having a mortal being as your absolute is that your trust shifts absolute word of God to a fallible being. Fifthly, the new disciple is encouraged to “fish out” for others, which basically means to invite people to the church. Finally, if the disciple exhibits exceptional commitment, then he or she is baptized, there upon one becomes a born again Christian and begins to play the role of a discipler. And so the circle continues. With this brief background, let us now commence our evaluation of the N.C.C. teachings.

Presentations and Biblical Critique of the N.C.C.’s Teaching on Water Baptism Based Upon the Interpretation of Acts 2:38

Presentation of the Teaching Water baptism occupies a very central place in the teachings of the Nairobi Christian Church. Water baptism as taught by N.C.C. is essential for one’s salvation. It should be understood that salvation here is understood not in the wider context as the overall long-term working of God in a believer’s life encompassing the beginning of one’s salvation, the continuity of it also known as progressive salvation, and its culmination (which is glorification). Rather the salvation that is talked of here is limited to its initial commencement which constitutes regeneration, forgiveness of sins, justification, propitiation, redemption and adoption. As such, the N.C.C. teaches that no one can claim to have experienced regeneration, forgiveness of sin or even justification apart from water baptism. But the red flag question we should ask here is this: “Is water baptism essential for justification or even the forgiveness of sin?” The N.C.C. would answer this question in the affirmative especially in regard to the essence of water baptism for the forgiveness of sins. This is based upon their interpretation of Acts 2:38 which says: “Peter replied, ‘repent and be baptized, everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ eis the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit‘ (Acts 2:38, N.I.V.).

The Biblical Critique of this Teaching

At face value, it would seem like Acts 2:38 does indeed suggest that without water baptism there is no forgiveness of sins. However, a brief exegesis would reveal to us that the building up of a doctrine based on this face value observation is risky business. One of the great determinants in understanding Peter’s reply as given in Acts 2:38 would be to establish the correct and accurate interpretation of the prepositional phrase: eis the forgiveness of your sins. It is true that one of the many uses of eis is to introduce purpose (Greenlee, J. Harold, A Concise Exegetical Grammar of New Testament Greek p. 36.) A good example of this usage is in Mt. 26:28 (This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many eis the forgiveness of sins) where the Lord Jesus Christ is explaining the purpose for the outpouring of His blood which was to take place at the crucifixion. The only logical explanation of the meaning of the as it is used in the prepositional phrase “eis the forgiveness of sins” is “purpose”. The Lord’s blood was to be shed for the forgiveness of our sins, i.e., for the purpose of our forgiveness (or in order that our sins may be forgiven), (Robertson, Grammar, p. 228). However, it is not true that “purpose” is the only possible meaning of the preposition eis in the context of Acts 2:38. The other possible rendering would be “causal” or “in response”. According to Robertson’s argument, the causal usage is just as good a function as it is for aim or purpose. (Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament 3:35 p. 35). A typical causal usage is seen in Mt. 10:41,42 where it reads: Anyone who receives a prophet will receive a prophet’s reward and anyone who receives a righteous man eis he is a righteous man will receive a righteous man’s reward. And if anyone gives a cup of cold water to one of these little ones I tell you the truth, he will certainly not lose his reward. Here the interpretation cannot be purpose or aim, but rather basis or ground. As such the good reception and deeds are honored here only because they are on the basis of the name of prophet, the righteous man, and the disciple i.e., because one is a prophet, a righteous man or a disciple. (Ibid). Another similar usage is seen in Mt. 12:41 (The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented eis the preaching of Jonah, an now one greater than Jonah is here) where Matthew seems to suggest that the men of Ninevah repented , meaning because of the preaching of Jonah (Robertson, Grammar, p. 229). We observe then that the meaning of the preposition eis could well vacillate between “purpose” and “causal.” In other words, Acts 2:38 could be interpreted in two ways. It could either read, “Peter replied, ‘Repent and be baptized, everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins….’ or it could read, “Peter replied, ‘Repent and be baptized, everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ because your sins have been forgiven ….'” The translation that one chooses here depends to a very great extent on one’s understanding of the concept of “baptism” and “repentance.” An exegesis of these two terms is helpful here in order to give us the overall context of Acts 2:38 upon which the possible interpretation of the preposition may be determined. We will commence with the verb “repent.” which is the first word in Peter’s answer to the receptive audience. In exegeting it we’ll first do a grammatical exegesis and then an etymological one.

Grammatical exegesis: The parsing of this verb is 2nd person, plural, active voice, aorist tense and imperative mood. Of special significance would be the determination of the exact tense and mood usage. In regard to the mood usage, the various usages of the imperative mood according to Robertson are the imperatives of command, hortatory, prohibition, entreaty, permission and condition (Robertson, New Short Grammar, p. 312). It is highly impossible that the usage would be prohibitive. According to Nunn, prohibition is expressed in Greek by the aorist subjunctive not imperative as is the case here (Nunn, H. P. V. A Short Syntax of New Testament Greek, p. 84). Context-wise we should be able to eliminate all the other usages except the entreaty use. There is nothing in this context to suggest a conditional, permissible, or even hortatory usage. It is highly improbable that the command usage would be in view either. Thus, the most probable usage of the mood here would be that of command. In regard to the tense usage, the general usage of the aorist in combination with the viewpoint of its imperative is “ingressive”, where ingressive here means that the action is regarded from the initiation (Goetchius, The Language of the New Testament, p. 331). However, of the various specific uses of the aorist, the most probable ones in this context, would be the constantive usage. As is pointed out by Nunn, the aorist imperative, in accordance with the use of the aorist tense in moods other than indicative, denotes that the action is regarded as a single event. (Nunn, A Short Syntax of the New Testament, p. 83.) The writer would therefore choose to adopt the constantive usage which views the action in its entirety with no reference to its beginning or end (Brooks, Syntax of New Testament Greek p. 90). So far we have dwelt on the specifics of the mood and the tense respectively. But what really is the significance of the combination between an aorist tense and imperative mood? As revealed by Moulton, In the imperative…the conciseness of the aorist makes it a decidedly more sharp and urgent form (Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, p. 173). In other words the combinations of the imperative mood and the aorist tense supply a tone of urgency. Indeed this tone of urgency implicit in this verb has been accurately captured by Robertson: “Turn right about and do it now. You crucified this Jesus. Now crown Him in your hearts as Lord and Christ. This first” (Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, p. 34). Conclusively, then, we can say that this verb brings with it a tone of urgency and also calls for a once and for all response.

Etymological usage: In secular Greek, the lexical form of this word carries, for the most part, the idea of superficial change of mind so much so that as has been pointed out by Behm, “the Hellenistic philosophers used it predominantly in the intellectual sense” (Behm, TDNT, 4:980,). However, the word as it appears in the LXX carries with it a deeper meaning than the meaning reflected in secular Greek. It is true that this word would in certain instances carry the secular Greek intellectual meaning of “change of mind and intentions” (cf. Isa 15:29; Jer 18:8; Amos 7:3,6). But it is really in the LXX that a meaning other than the above has been projected. Behm, having observed that the Hebrew word for metanoew in the LXX is used synonymously with the Hebrew word nhm, which has the idea of religious and moral conversion, conclusively asserts metanoew in regards to in this way: it refers not merely to the individual case of penitent change of mind but to an intention in total attitude, to the relations to God which embraces the whole life, to a change in nature which results from a reorientation brought about by God (Ibid., p. 989). As such the new and deeper meaning that is inherent in the LXX usage of this verb and which is totally alien to the secular Greek usage is that repentance assumes more than just an intellectual change of mind. Repentance connotes moral change. Studying the New Testament usage of this word, which according to Behm appears twenty three times in the New Testament, carries with it not only the mental Greek meaning but also the moral LXX idea. Commenting on the latter usage of this word, Kromminga has this to say: metanoew can be said to denote an inward change of mind, affections, convictions, and commitment rooted in the fear of God and sorrow for offenses committed against Him (Kromminga, G.C. “Repentance”, EDT). There are few instances in the New Testament where the word could connote the intellectual meaning. According to Behm, the Greek sense of metanoew is most likely found in Lk. 17:3f where it denotes regret for a fault against one’s brother and in 2 Cor. 7:9f where it suggests remorse. Elsewhere the only possible rendering would be “to convert” (Behn, ” , etc.,” TONT, 4:999). If Behm’s above assertion regarding the scarcity of the Greek secular usage of this word in the New Testament were true, we would be justified in claiming the second and deeper meaning of metanoew as what is implied in Acts 2:38. This is not without the support of certain commentators on the Book of Acts. Greene defines this word in this way: Repentance is such hatred for sin that the penitent one forsakes sin and turns about face to walk with God (Greene, The Acts of the Apostles, p. 181). In other words, true repentance begets accompanying action. Similarly, Gloag commenting on the same verse lays the following emphasis: ” metanoew is not to be restricted to mere sorrow for sin, i.e., repentance in the sense of contrition; but it imports a change of views, mind and purpose, and a consequent change of disposition, i.e., repentance is the sense of conversion (Gloag, The Acts of the Apostles, p. 109). The same emphasis regarding the usage of metanoew is echoed by Kearsay in the following words: It describes a radical change in this individual disposition…The transformation implied, therefore, is not a matter merely of mental judgment, but of new religion and moral attitudes (Kearsay, “Repentance”, NDT). A pertinent question to ask ourselves at this point is this: “What is the link between the faith and repentance?” According to Murray, faith and repentance are two sides of the same coin and therefore cannot be separated. Faith dissociated from repentance would not be faith that is unto salvation…it is vain to ask which is prior, faith or repentance? They are always concurrently in exercise and are mutually conditioning. Faith is directed to Christ for salvation from sin unto holiness and life. But this involves hatred of sin and turning from sin unto God which is repentance. (Murray, J., “Repentance”, NBD) Implicit then in the concept of repentance is faith. It is for this reason that Hearsay warns that it would be a serious misrepresentation of Scripture to separate repentance from faith, as if the former were in any sense a conditioning of receiving the latter (Hearsay, R. “Repentance”, NDT). This is clear from the fact that apostolic preaching sometimes summoned people to repent but on other occasions to believe or have faith. A good example of the former is in Acts 17:30 where Paul told the Athenians that God “commands people everywhere to repent”. A good example of the latter is in Acts 16:31 where Paul, responding to the inquiry of the Philippian jailor, says, “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved”. Furthermore, Wells’ assertion that no one word captures all that becoming a Christian means does underscore the fact that faith is not to be seen apart from repentance just because it is not mentioned in Acts 2:38 (Wells, David F. Turning to God, p. 33). Since there is consensus that faith is implied in Acts 2:38, then it need not be erroneous to assume a causal understanding of the preposition eis for the following reason: in scripture, forgiveness of sin follows upon either repentance or faith. “Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out…” (Acts 3:19) “All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name (Acts 10:43). Therefore, it is still within scriptural allowance to assume that the forgiveness of sins in Acts 2:38 is based upon repentance, which cannot be dissociated from faith or belief, and does not necessarily require water baptism. But what then is the significance of water baptism in this verse. To adequately answer this question we would first have to do an exegesis of the phrase “be baptized” as it is used in Acts 2:38.

The verb is parsed aorist, passive, 3rd person, singular and imperative mood. Here we again observe the combination of the imperative mood and the aorist tense to designate urgency. The significance of the passive voice is that it “presents the subject as acted upon, receiving the action, rather than doing the action” (Robertson, New Short Grammar of the Greek Testament, p. 291). Of significance here would be the change in the number and pronoun for this verb compared to the preceding verb “repent”. The change is from 2nd person, plural for the first verb to 3rd person singular for the verb. The implication of this grammatical shift has been suggested by Robertson. The change marks a break in the thought here…The first thing to do is make a radical change of heart…Then let each one be baptized after the change (Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament,p. 34). The significance of baptism here then would be an outward testimony of an inward change. This baptism is to executed “in the name of Jesus,” meaning that it should be performed upon the name of Jesus Christ or on the ground of the name so that this name, as the contents of the faith and confession becomes the ground upon which the becoming baptized rests (Vincent, Word Studies of the New Testament, p. 149).

Conclusion

In light of our findings in regards to the efficacy of water baptism, it would be highly dogmatic for the N.C.C. to claim that baptism is necessary for salvation and that there is no salvation (i.e., forgiveness of sins, justification, etc.) apart from water baptism. As F. F. Bruce comments “such an idea is contrary to the tenor of the whole New Testament” (Bruce, Answer to Questions, p. 76). It is faith union with Christ that saves.