By: Nana Yaw Aidoo

One time during the life of Christ some “Jews gathered round him and said to him, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly” (John 10:24). Jesus Christ had given indications but they wanted him to speak in no unmistakable terms and to give as Albert Barnes noted, “a plain and positive declaration that he was the Messiah.” As Christians and especially as ministers of the gospel, we need to speak plainly on all issues at all times. And in these times when the issue of repentance and baptism have become contentious among churches of Christ in Ghana, the quality of speaking plainly on all issues seems especially important now more than ever.

The Need for Intellectual Curiosity

To be sure, this issue of what exactly repentance is and how repentance relates to baptism has a long history of debate among churches of Christ in Ghana. Anyone who has followed the debate carefully would quickly realize that it is much more complicated than we think. It is not as simple as calling someone a liberal or a legalist or claiming that a person doesn’t believe that repentance is necessary to be saved or that a person wants to add more conditions to the gospel. And it is precisely because of the complexity of the issue that we need to demonstrate what Michael J. Kruger calls, “intellectual curiosity.” If we were curious about genuinely listening to each other it would help us understand each other’s view and why the other person holds such a view, which would then help us in framing well-reasoned arguments that touch on the issue at hand because we genuinely and fairly understand the other side.

What one finds, however, is that we seem interested not in being intellectually curious but in making “declarations—usually statements about the goodness or badness of the other side. And these declarations are often laced with moral accusations that the other side is bigoted, or narrow-minded, or discriminatory, or what have you” (Kruger). So, you find believers misrepresenting the positions of fellow believers and being ever “ready to jump on any statement that could be construed in a way that makes their opponent look bad.” If you think I’m exaggerating, go to Facebook and pay attention to how many times some brethren have said that other brethren don’t believe that repentance is necessary to be saved or how many times some have said that others want to add conditions to the gospel. The one group even believes that they are original students of God’s word while claiming that the other is not studying God’s word for themselves but merely repeating the teachings of others. This is how ridiculous the whole situation has become. My prayer is that in all of this, we remember the golden rule and do unto others only what we would love to be done to us (Matt. 7:12).

It is in keeping with this spirit of intellectual curiosity that I want to teach plainly what I believe to be the truth on the issue of repentance and how it relates to baptism. For anyone interested, I have written a detailed article on repentance (link: Repent of Your Sins – La Vista Church of Christ). I however wrote it not with how it relates specifically to baptism in mind. So, in this present article, I want to take my views on repentance a step further and consider how it relates to baptism in some detail. After this, I will consider briefly what a person who has divorced without cause and remarried should do based on my view of true repentance.

Repentance and How It Relates to Baptism

I begin by saying that I am in sympathy with the teaching that after a person has been taught the truth, even a person who is cohabiting, who has divorced without cause and remarried, or who is actively practicing polygyny, so long as that person has been impressed with the fact that he or she is living in sin and with the cost that he or she needs to pay in order to be a true disciple of Christ (Matt. 10:34-39; Luke 14:25-33); if the person after hearing all of this asks to be baptized, then there is simply no justification for denying the person baptism. To ask the person to first go and reform his or her life before being baptized is to mistake repentance for its fruit.

I have argued in other places that while repentance leads to the reformation of life, repentance in and of itself is not the reformation of life. Repentance is a change of the mind and will. The Bible writers knew to make this distinction clear. Two examples will suffice. In the parable of the two sons, Jesus Christ spoke of a son who when asked to go and work in the family’s vineyard, said he would not. However, as the text goes, he repented, and went (Matt 21:29). It seems to me that Jesus Christ understood repentance to be different from the action the son took for Jesus didn’t merely say the son repented, neither did he merely say that the son went. Rather the son repented and went. If repentance were not separate from its fruit, then merely saying that the son repented would have been enough to convey the message that the son eventually did what he had previously said he wouldn’t do. But Christ didn’t say that. Christ said the son repented and went. Repentance took place before the son went. What was it that took place before the son went? Christ says repentance. What did Christ mean by repentance here? The son had initially said, “I will not.” Therefore, repentance here means that the son was no longer thinking and saying, “I will not.” Now he was saying “I will.” This is the repentance that took place and it took place in the mind and will of the son. The son simply took the “not” out of his will. It was after this change of mind and will have taken place that we see the son take action. Hence, Christ could say, “but afterward he repented and went.”

Another example that indicates that the Bible writers distinguished between repentance and its fruit is Paul’s defense before Agrippa II. Listen to the apostle:

Wherefore, O King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, but declared first to those at Damascus, then at Jerusalem and throughout all the country of Judea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God and perform deeds worthy of their repentance (Acts 26:19-20).

In the foregoing statement, Paul says his manner was to teach the Gentiles to do three things; repent, turn to God, and perform deeds worthy of their repentance. Again, if it is the case that Paul believed that repentance equals reformation or a change of life, all he had to say here was that he taught the Gentiles to repent. That alone would have clarified that he wanted the Gentiles to change their lives. But he doesn’t do that. He actually does more. He doesn’t merely say he taught the Gentiles to repent but to repent and then do things that are worthy of the repentance that has already taken place. Of course, true repentance will lead to a reformed life. But that is what repentance does. It leads to a reformed life. It is not a reformed life.

Hence, if repentance is a change of the mind and will, then it takes place outside the purview of human observation. The only thing that indicates to us that a person has repented is if the person starts to reform his or her life. However, the mere fact that we have not yet seen a reformed life does not necessarily mean that repentance has not taken place. As someone rightly said, repentance is positional whereas its fruit is progressive. We need to do what the apostle Paul did and encourage the performance of deeds that are in keeping with repentance.

I strongly believe that we need to consider this distinction in our interpretation of Acts 2:38. The text 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 shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” If my argument is correct and there is a distinction (no matter how small or thin) between repentance and the fruit of repentance, then we need to pay attention to the fact that Peter doesn’t say to the gathered Jews, “Bear fruit of repentance, and be baptized.” What he actually does say is “Repent, and be baptized.” However, when we tell someone who for example is actively practicing polygyny but has been taught that such a condition is a sin and has been taught the cost of discipleship, and yet requests to be baptized to first leave the other women before being baptized, we muddle this distinction and add to God’s conditions. I repeat. God doesn’t say “Bear fruit of repentance and be baptized.” What God says is “Repent and be baptized.” And there is a distinction between the two.

Unfortunately, those who do not make this distinction, will charge someone like me with teaching that repentance isn’t necessary to be saved or that repentance comes after baptism. But that is far from the truth. The problem is not with me but with them for failing to distinguish between repentance and the works that are worthy of the repentance that has already taken place. Repentance is a change of mind or will, which leads to a change of life. It leads to a changed life. It is not a changed life. After baptism, the new convert, as in the case of the one who was practicing polygyny, is not now going to repent but is going to bear fruit that is in keeping with the repentance that took place before his baptism. The same applies to the liar, the gossip, the one with anger issues, or the one who binges on porn. After baptism, the liar, for example, isn’t now going to repent. He or she should have done that before his or her baptism in order to be saved (Acts 2:38). Rather, after baptism, he or she is going to bear fruit or produce deeds that befit the repentance that took place before he or she was baptized.

All who know me are aware that I worked for some time with longtime preacher Seth Osae-Larbi. Brother Osae-Larbi once told me a story which I have since made a point to tell my students. He told me of a time when a group of evangelists went to the North of Ghana for evangelism. While there they met a polygynist and preached the gospel to him. After the Bible study, this man requested to be baptized. The evangelists, being the wise men they were, made sure to tell the man of the cost he needed to bear in order to follow Christ. He needed to repent of his sin. He couldn’t be a Christian and have more than one wife. The man listened quietly and intently to these evangelists and then requested a second time to be baptized. However, the evangelists were not united on the issue. Some insisted that he needed to first leave the women before he was qualified to be baptized. Brother Osae-Larbi and some others insisted otherwise. They were convinced that if after all they had told the man, he still wanted to be baptized, then likely some form of change had taken place in the man’s mind and will. Eventually, the view of Brother Osae-Larbi and those who thought like him prevailed and they baptized this man. At this point in the story Brother Osae-Larbi looked me in the eye and said, “Brother Emmanuel, the man eventually left the other wives, grew stronger and stronger in the faith, and traveled to Heritage Bible Institute to be trained as an evangelist.” Today, this brother who was once a polygynist is one of the men preaching the gospel of Christ to the people of Northern Ghana.

I repeat this story to show that if the view that he needed to first leave his wives before being baptized prevailed, it is likely he would still be living in his sin for the evangelists would have stopped paying attention to him since they wouldn’t consider him a brother. We need not discount and underemphasize the role that the church to which God adds people plays in the sanctification and reformation of people’s lives. And we certainly need to distinguish between repentance and the fruit of repentance. If we do, we won’t ask people to go and first reform their lives before they can be baptized for that is not the apostolic instruction (cf. Acts 2:38). After we’ve properly taught them God’s word, like Philip to the Ethiopian, we will baptize them when they request it (Acts 8:36 ff).

Till When Should We Teach Them to Change?

The “gotcha” that usually gets thrown at this position is this: “If what you teach is so, then until when should the person be taught and encouraged to reform his or her life after baptism?” Since the answer to this question is usually not unanimous, those who oppose the position I take in this article, wrongly assume that the position itself is wrong.

But the same question could be thrown at the other position. Supposing a man who is cohabiting with a woman sends her away and subsequently gets baptized. And supposing that a year after his baptism, he brings the woman back to his house, how long should the church take to get him to change? You’ll find that the answers to this question would also not be unanimous. However, would those who hold the view that repentance equals the reformation of life and that a person must reform his or her life before qualifying to be baptized say that it nullifies their position? Questions like this, in my opinion, are born out of the desire to not want to carefully consider opposing arguments. Let’s leave these decisions to the wisdom of local church leaders and let’s not make them interfere with God’s revealed word.

What About the One Who Has Divorced Without Cause and Remarried?

Now, in view of the afore going position on repentance, it seems to me that one who has divorced without cause and remarried must sever the remarriage after his or her baptism. While repentance is not the reformation of life, it leads to the reformation of life. This is what it means to bear fruit or produce deeds that are worthy of repentance (Matt. 3:8). Some, however, seem to think that after baptism, reformation, especially in this case, is not necessary, and to insist on it is to teach what they have termed the “Sankofa” doctrine.

There seems to be general agreement that divorce without cause and remarriage is a sin at least prior to baptism. I have paid attention to some brothers who are associated with one of the preacher training institutions at Takoradi. While they reject what they call the “Sankofa” doctrine, they seem to believe that at least prior to baptism, the union is a sin. One of them, for example, used the very words, “the sin of ‘DIVORCE’” (Bugre). And all of these brethren insist that baptism cleanses that sin. The very fact that they believe baptism cleanses that union implies that they believe that the condition prior to the baptism was a sinful or unclean one. However, it seems their understanding is that since God has cleansed the sin, the union has been sanctified, and the couple can continue in the union without further sin. What these people fail to realize, however, is that baptism only cleanses past sins (2 Pet. 1:9) and after baptism, we are not to continue in sin (Rom. 6:1). To return to a condition that was sinful prior to baptism, is to continue in sin and likely indicates a lack of repentance prior to baptism.

Take for example the case of Antipas and Herodias. Herodias was the actual wife of Herod Philip but she had left Philip for Antipas. Irrespective of Roman law, John’s verdict was that the union was unlawful (Mark 6:18). Now supposing that this happened today at Amasaman where a wife leaves her husband without cause to go and marry her husband’s brother. Certainly, this would be considered by all parties to be an adulterous or illegal union. Would baptism somehow make this illegal union right? Of course, not. An adulterous union before baptism is an adulterous union after baptism. Baptism is not a magic potion that makes illegal things legal. The solution in this case would be the severance of the adulterous or illegal union.

This is in keeping with fruit that is worthy of repentance.

Again, take the case of the Ephesian magicians. Luke records: “And a number of those who practiced magic arts brought their books together and burned them in the sight of all…” (Acts 19:19). This very act of burning the magic books and not returning to magic was in keeping with the fruit of repentance. The only thing that could demonstrate true repentance was to not return to the sin. If Paul had told them that because they had been baptized, they could continue in their magic arts because “the old has passed away,” he would have been guilty of teaching people to continue in sin. To therefore claim that because of baptism a person can continue doing that which was wrong before the baptism is to be guilty of teaching someone to continue in sin.

Another parallel would be a homosexual couple who get baptized after hearing and believing the gospel. If they truly repented, all their sins to the point of their baptism would be forgiven them. Baptism, however, would not make the homosexual union right. Like adulterous unions, homosexual unions are always wrong and illegal. Hence, to return to that condition or union and continue in it simply because they have been baptized, would mean continuing in sin, which likely indicates a lack of repentance on their part.

Therefore, if divorce without cause and remarriage is an adulterous and illegal union before baptism, then the union is still an adulterous and illegal one after baptism. And the only thing that will prove to the church that repentance truly took place prior to the baptism would be for that adulterous and illegal union to be severed (cf. Ezra 10:2, 3, 10, 11, 18, 19, 44).

Conclusion

It was my aim in this essay to set forth what I believe to be the truth concerning how repentance relates to baptism. Even though I do not fear successful refutation of any position I have taken in this article, I would be glad if the reader could point out any gap in my reasoning. Would to God that amidst this controversy we will obey the apostolic instruction to put others before ourselves (Php. 2:3) through the assumption of an intellectually curious posture. As Kruger well noted, intellectual curiosity is, “a practical way to not think too highly of ourselves, and to listen more carefully to our brothers or sisters in Christ. It’s a way to think about them not just about us. Or, put simply, it’s a way to be like Christ.”

Works Cited

Barnes, Albert. Barnes’ New Testament Notes. Power Bible CD, 5.1, Online Publishing Inc., 2006.

Bugre, Bless. “THE ‘SANKOFA’ DOCTRINE.” Bless Bugre, August 3, 2024, https://www.facebook.com/share/p/8tbEyNt69e9UTWUT/?

Kruger, Michael J. “The Loss of Intellectual Curiosity—and Why It’s Dividing the Church.” Canon Fodder, August 30, 2024, https://michaeljkruger.com/the-loss-of-intellectual-curiosity-and-whyits-dividing-the-church/. Accessed October 2, 2024.