Baptismal Regeneration and Scripture 2

The Light Shines in the Darkness...

All Scripture quotes are from the NASB:

E. Matthew 3:7-8 and Luke 3:7-8

“But when he [i.e. John the Baptist] saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism, he said to them, ‘You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Therefore bear fruit in keeping with repentance…”

If water baptism was the cause of spiritual regeneration, the infusion of virtues, and the remission of sin, then why would John the Baptist turn the Pharisees back from water baptism? Why would he then tell them to go and bear fruit in keeping with repentance if water baptism was the cause of bearing fruit? It is only logical to assume from this passage that regeneration and repentance came before any public water baptism.

F. Acts 10:47

“Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?”

Peter is speaking about the gentiles in Cornelius’ household who have been baptized by the Holy Spirit. He then says that they should be baptized in water. Thus, it is obvious that they were baptized by the Holy Spirit (and regenerated) apart from water baptism. Those who believe in baptismal regeneration might object and say that this is an exception to the rule. However, such an objection is completely silenced by Acts 11:16-17 where Peter says that what happened to the gentiles at Cornelius’ household is the exact same thing that happened to them. Furthermore, he said that it happened to them ‘after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ’ (i.e. before water baptism; v.17).

G. Acts 19:3-5

“And he said, ‘Into what then were you baptized?’ And they said, ‘Into John’s baptism.’ Paul said, ‘John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus.’ When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.”

Here, we have men being baptized twice, and so, water baptism could not be the means of receiving the forgiveness of sins. It is usually argued by those who believe in baptismal regeneration, such as Augustine of Hippo, that John’s baptism forgave sins in hope while baptism into Christ forgave sins in reality. However, this subtlety does not hold water in the light of Scripture because both baptisms were ‘for the forgiveness of sins’ (Luke 3:3, Acts 2:38). Thus, if one is symbolical, then both must be symbolical.

H. 1 Corinthians 1:17

“For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void.”

Here, Paul states that he was not sent ‘to baptize, but to preach the gospel’. Thus, he differentiates between baptism and the gospel. However, if water baptism was the cause of regeneration and the forgiveness of sin, then it would be part of the gospel. This statement from Paul is exactly the kind of thing that one would expect if water baptism was the outward physical representation of an inward spiritual act that had happened already.

I. 1 Peter 3:20-21

“…who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you-not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience-through the resurrection of Jesus Christ…”

According to Peter, the world being cleansed of sin by the flood is a symbol of baptism which is in and of itself a symbol of personally being cleansed from sin. Frequently, Roman Catholics will only cite the first half of verse 21, ‘baptism now saves you’, and infer that water baptism is the means of spiritual salvation and regeneration. However, this is refuted on two grounds. First, right before, Peter uses the words ‘corresponding to that’ referring to the Great Flood being representative of baptism. So, he infers that baptism here is symbolic of salvation. Second, he qualifies what he just said with the words ‘not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience’. Salvation is not accomplished when a minister of the gospel baptizes someone with water. Instead, it is when someone repents and believes in the gospel.

J. Ephesians 2:8-9

“For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as the result of works, so that no one may boast.”

According to Paul, no one is saved by works which would include baptism. Roman Catholics and others object and say, “Baptism is not a work of man. It is a work of God,” with the purpose of trying to argue that it does not fall under the things excluded from the gospel in Ephesians 2:8-9. However, this is pure sophistry in trying to get around the text. If circumcision, an act which a priest does to a child shortly after birth, is called a ‘work’ by Paul and is excluded from the gospel (Galatians 2:11-21), then baptism, which is an act done by a priest to a child shortly after birth (in the Roman Catholic Church), must also be a work. Thus, it is excluded by Paul from the gospel in Ephesians 2:8-9. If Paul were to express the belief that men are given initial justification by faith alone (not physical actions) apart from everything else, then how would he do that? He would say it exactly as he said Ephesians 2:8-9!

Arguments for Baptismal Regeneration Refuted

John 3:5

“Jesus answered, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”

The Roman Catholic Church has argued that ‘water’ refers to water baptism. However, as was noted in C. and D., when in a soteriological context, water primarily signifies the cleansing of the soul from sin. Jesus was speaking to Nicodemus, a teacher of the Law and the Prophets (i.e. the Old Testament). Thus, when Jesus used the word water, Nicodemus probably would have thought of Ezekiel 36:25-27 (emphasis mine):

“Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in my statutes, and you will be careful to observe my ordinances.”

-Ezekiel 36:25-27

Here, it is clear that just as removing a heart of stone is symbolic, so the use of water to cleanse from sin is symbolic. Thus, in John 3:5, the ‘water’ represents the cleansing from sin, and the Spirit represents the newness of the life that is characterized by obedience to God’s commandments.

Acts 2:38

“Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’”

This is a favorite for those who believe in baptismal regeneration. However, this verse does not automatically support water baptismal regeneration for two reasons. First, the ‘for’ could be in reference to repentance only, and baptism, being so closely connected as the outward symbol of repentance, would happen at the same time as the repentance. Often times, the preachers in those days would preach, call men to repentance, and ask them to be baptized on the spot as an external symbol of the inward reality (John the Baptist being a prime example). As is plainly taught in Acts 10:47, the baptism of the Holy Spirit came first, and then, Peter said that they should be baptized as a public testimony and symbol of the inward reality that has already taken place.

Second, the word ‘for’, as used here, is ‘eis’. It can mean ‘to’ or ‘for the purpose of’ which would indicate that one who is baptized in water receives the forgiveness of sin. However, it can have other meanings such as ‘because of’, ‘in response to’, ‘at’, or ‘with a view to’. This would imply that they should be baptized because their sins have already been forgiven.

The normal response to this is to ask why so many translations translate ‘eis’ in Acts 2:38 as ‘for’. The reason is that when there is controversy surrounding a verse, the translators default to a word’s primary meaning. However, there are a few cases where ‘eis’ is not translated as ‘for’ (i.e. its primary meaning) because it would make no sense (emphasis mine):

“The men of Nineveh . . . repented at the preaching of Jonah.”

-Matthew 12:41

The word translated as ‘at’ is ‘eis’. Did the men of Nineveh repent for (i.e. so that they would receive) the preaching of Jonah? Of course not! It is the other way around. The repented because of the preaching of Jonah. Here’s another one (emphasis mine):

“Yet he did not waver through unbelief with respect to the promise of God.”

-Romans 4:20

The word translated ‘with respect to’ is ‘eis’. Did Abraham not waver so that he would receive the promise of God? No, because the promise of God had already been given to him. He did not waver because of the promise of God. In conclusion, Acts 2:38 is a verse which can easily go either way, but it would contradict other clearer verses if it is used to support baptismal regeneration.

Acts 22:16

“Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.”

Roman Catholics and others use this to say that to ‘be baptized’ will ‘wash away your sins’. As was said in the response to Acts 2:38, the symbolic washing usually accompanied the repentance of the individual back in those times. It is the ‘calling on His name’ that saves, not the symbolic washing. As is plainly taught in Acts 10:47, the baptism of the Holy Spirit came first, and then, Peter said that they should be baptized as a public testimony and symbol of the inward reality that has already taken place. As was noted in parts C. and D., the normative use of ‘washing’ in a soteriological context is symbolic.

Romans 6:3-4

“Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.”

Roman Catholic apologists claim that this verse teaches water baptismal regeneration. On the contrary, as was noted in part B., not all references to baptism refer to emersion in water. This is a prime example of the baptism of the Holy Spirit which is what water baptism represents.

Colossians 2:11-12

“…and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.”

Here, verse 12 might seem to imply that water baptism imparts spiritual life. As noted in part B., however, the word ‘baptism’ does not always refer to emersion in water. In verse 11, Paul is referring to ‘a circumcision made without hands’ (i.e. the spiritual circumcision of the heart), and then in the next verse, he makes that analogous to ‘having been buried with Him in baptism’. The implication is that the baptism referred to here is the baptism ‘made without hands’ (i.e. Spirit baptism). Thus, by making baptism directly analogous to Old Testament circumcision, Paul is saying that the physical act of water baptism does not remit sin or regenerate anyone. So, rather than supporting baptismal regeneration, this passage destroys it.

Titus 3:5

“He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit.”

Those who believe in baptismal regeneration use the phrase ‘washing of regeneration’ to support their dogma. However, parts C. and D. prove that not all references to water or washing refer to actual water. Just like in John 3:5, ‘washing of regeneration’ refers to the cleansing from sin, and the phrase ‘renewing by the Holy Spirit’ refers to the newness of the life that is characterized by obedience to God’s commandments.

1 Peter 3:21

“Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you-not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience-through the resurrection of Jesus Christ…”

[See part I. for the response.]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also, some helpful audio on this topic can be found at:

http://www.straitgate.com/webster/

http://www.christiantruth.com/realaudio.html (The Gospel of the Reformation, Tape #3)

Some helpful online reading can be found here:

http://members.aol.com/jasonte/baptism.htm

http://aomin.org/NotByWorks.html