Intro
I teased in my last post that I would be talking about the verses that some people say support Baptismal Regeneration. (If you haven’t read my post on baptism or my first one on Baptismal Regeneration, catch up here.) Digging into the interpretation of these verses is key to demonstrating the validity of this doctrine. After all, if the Bible truly teaches it, then everything I said in my last post is moot and must have other explanations. On the other hand, something similar can be said about these verses if the Bible does not teach Baptismal Regeneration.
The Verses
Believers in Baptismal Regeneration cite 7 primary Scripture verses to support their claims. I’m honestly not sure if there’s anymore. But these are the ones that the doctrine stands or falls on: Mark 16:16, 1 Peter 3:21, Acts 22:16, Galatians 3:27, Acts 2:38, John 3:5 and Romans 6:3-5. I plan to go through each of the verses in turn and briefly show how it doesn’t support Baptismal Regeneration. Let’s start.
Mark 16:16
I first need to address one thing about this passage before moving on to the analysis. Some scholars question the validity of Mark 16:9-20. They say that a scribe might have added them later on and that Mark didn’t write them. So, there is risk in basing a key piece of doctrine on anything from these verses. Now assuming that it is original to Mark, does it actually teach Baptismal Regeneration? Let’s break it down.
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. (NIV)
In this verse, I see two distinct statements.
- Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved.
- Whoever does not believe will be condemned.
The first statement tells us something important about those who believe and are baptized – they will be saved. The second statement tells us that anyone who does not believe will be condemned. However, I see nothing in this verse that states what happens to a person when they are baptized but may or may not believe. In order to properly teach the necessity of baptism for salvation, we need a third statement. Something like “He who believes and is not baptized will be condemned” or “He who is not baptized will be condemned”. Of course, neither appears in the verse. Already this brings out the skeptic in me.
Negative Inference Fallacy
When using Mark 16:16 in support of Baptismal Regeneration, you make a mistake known as the Negative Inference Fallacy. To put it plainly, “If a statement is true, we cannot assume that all opposites of that statement are also true.” A simple example of this would be, “a cat with black fur is an animal” – a true statement. But the negative “a cat without black fur is not animal” is false. The fallacy would claim that second statement is true. Similarly, the statement “he who believes and is baptized will be saved” is true. (Jesus explicitly says that). However, to assume the statement “he who believes but is not baptized will not be saved” is true, is unwarranted.
Belief Vs Unbelief
The last thing to pull from Mark 16:16 is that Jesus gives us a specific condition that appears in both the positive and negative outcomes: belief. Jesus shows us here that without belief you condemn yourself. Doesn’t matter your baptismal status. If Jesus requires anything of us, He states it here as belief. So, we know for certain that to be saved, we need faith. We need to believe in Jesus and His finished work on the cross. Because Jesus worded the condemnation portion this way, this passage actually denies the necessity of baptism for salvation. Kinda ironic when you think about it. That one of the passages commonly cited for Baptismal Regeneration actually denies it. That happens sometimes with certain false doctrines. Determined to find evidence for it, people often overlook or miss things staring at them in the face.
1 Peter 3:21
and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ (NIV)
At first glance, it certainly looks like Peter says that baptism is necessary for salvation. However, this contradicts other passages demonstrating people’s salvation prior to baptism. One of the most well-known examples is Cornelius and his household in Acts 10. And as the one preaching, Peter would know about this! When Peter saw the evidence of their salvation through the baptism of the Holy Spirit, he saw no reason to prevent water baptism from taking place. After all, they received the same gift that the Jewish believers had. So, what is Peter saying then?
Peter connects baptism with salvation but specifies by the statement “not the removal of dirt from the body” that the act of baptism doesn’t save. Rather, he’s saying that baptism represents the thing that does save you – the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. (The ESV says, “appeal to God for a clean conscience”.) Appealing to God saves us and baptism represents that salvation.
Some of the confusion here comes from the fact that baptism oftentimes gets relegated to a later date – rather than happening right away. In Peter’s Day, baptism happened almost immediately after confessing Christ as Lord. In today’s church, the equivalent to immediate baptism would be “making a decision for Christ” or “praying a sinner’s prayer”. To us claiming salvation and not praying a sinner’s prayer just doesn’t compute. Same with baptism back in the first century church. They certainly emphasized it more than we do today. Perhaps to our detriment. After all Jesus commanded baptism.
Acts 22:16
And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name. (NIV)
Here Ananias tells Paul to get baptized and wash his sins away. Slam dunk? Baptism saved Paul. Not exactly. The question to ask and answer is “When was Paul saved”? According to Paul in Galatians 1:11-12, Jesus Himself preached the gospel to Paul, not Ananias. And when Paul recounts the road to Damascus story in Acts 26:12-18, he makes no mention of Ananias at all. These passages strongly suggest that Paul’s salvation came on the road to Damascus. That after Jesus spoke to him, Paul believed in Him. In addition, Paul received the baptism of Holy Spirit at the same time he received his eyesight back – all before Ananias water baptized him. And the Bible makes it clear that Holy Spirit only comes upon those who believe. So how could Paul receive Holy Spirit unless he was already saved?
The Grammer
The Greek grammatical structure of Acts 22:16 also lends itself to a different interpretation than the face value one. The Greek participle epikalesamenos, translated as “calling on his name”, refers to an action simultaneous with or preceding the main verb. In this context, the participle can easily be translated as “having called on his name”. This fits with the idea of Paul’s salvation occurring on the road to Damascus – before his baptism (the main verb referenced earlier). This alternative translation better describes the order of events based on Paul’s descriptions of his salvation experience.
And as a final comment about this verse, the idea of baptism washing away sins found in this verse is once again symbolism. After all, we see that Paul’s salvation occurred before baptism and thus the baptism was purely symbolic. Paul’s spiritual cleansing already took place. Like Peter and Cornelius, Ananias might as well baptize Paul since he already received the gift of Holy Spirit.
Galatians 3:27
for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. (NIV)
To make this verse teach Baptismal Regeneration feels like a stretch to me. And not only that, but it also takes it out of context of the whole of the book of Galatians. The central argument found in Galatians rebukes a mixing of God’s grace and works of the law for salvation (Galatians 1:6-10). So, for Paul to write an additional requirement for salvation other than faith in Jesus makes no sense. Galatians 2:16 declares that justification comes from faith in Jesus Christ and not by works of the law. In fact, the first 3 chapters of Galatians emphasizes justification by faith over works. And verse 26 of chapter 3 declares our sonship comes by faith in Jesus.
Which Baptism?
An interesting note about Galatians 3:27. It may not even be referring to water baptism at all! We know of at least two types of baptism. Water baptism and Spirit baptism. Which one fits the context better here? Well, take a look at these other two Scriptures and see for yourself what makes more sense.
You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ. Romans 8:9 (NIV)
Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ. For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. 1 Corinthians 12:12-13 (NIV)
Do these passages make it clearer? Galatians refers to a baptism into Jesus. Romans makes it clear that the Spirit of God sets us apart from the unbeliever. And 1 Corinthians makes it clear that the baptism of the Spirit brings us into the body of Christ. So, more likely than not, Galatians 3:27 refers to baptism of the Spirit, not of water.
Acts 2:38
Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (NIV)
One of the strongest verses to support Baptismal Regeneration, Acts 2:38 looks daunting to address. After all it connects repentance, baptism, and forgiveness all in one fell swoop. However, let me show you something interesting about the Greek grammar here. It opened up my eyes to what it really says.
Translation Please
The Greek word eis (translated as “for” in this verse) lies at the heart of this discussion. Well, that and what definition to ascribe to “for”. After all, “for” means different things in different contexts. Here’s just a few: “in order to get”, “because of”, “with regard to”. And any one of these fits in Acts here. Consequently, we need additional research to identify what meaning makes the most sense. Luckily, other people already did this for me. So, I’ll sum it up here.
The New Testament contains eis 1774 times and translates in different ways across the board. And since eis means different things in different contexts (just like “for”), it makes it more complicated to determine what the correct translation is. However, noted Greek scholars A.T. Robertson and J.R. Mantey maintain that in Acts 2:38, it should be translated “because of” or “in view of” rather than “in order to get” or “for the purpose of”. The reason comes from the fact that elsewhere that eis and baptism are used together it clearly translates as “because of” or “in regard to”. Some examples. (I put the word translated from eis in bold.)
“I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me comes one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.” Matthew 3:11 (NIV)
Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? Romans 6:3 (NIV)
They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. 1 Corinthians 10:2 (NIV)
Now try to read these verses with “in order to get” replacing the bold words. They make no sense, right? In these verses, “because of”, “with regard to”, or even “as a result of” makes more sense. (I explain more about the phrase “baptized into” later in my discussion about Romans 6:3.) Therefore, interpreting eis as “because of” in Acts 2:38 in order to maintain consistency with other passages makes the most sense.
Second or Third Person
Moving on from Greek prepositions, the change in pronouns here in Acts 2:38 gives strong clues as to the meaning of the sentence. The Greek words translated “repent” and “your” here are both second person plural. Meanwhile, the phrase translated as “be baptized ” is third person singular.
Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
We get a quick change from second person plural to third person singular and back again to second person plural. Fascinating. The switch connects the command “repent” to the phrase “forgiveness of your sins” directly. And taking into account the change in person and plurality, you essentially get a new sentence. “You all repent for the forgiveness of all of your sins, and let each one of you be baptized”. Or think of the baptism phrase as parenthetical to Peter’s main message. “Repent (and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ) for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
However you look at it, the grammatical structure and the word choice used (in conjunction with other uses of that same word) lends itself to an interpretation of Acts 2:38 that denies Baptismal Regeneration.
John 3:5
Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. (NIV)
We now get to one of the favorite verses for believers in Baptismal Regeneration. Favorite because it comes out of Jesus’ mouth and contains the phrase “born of water”. Doesn’t say “baptism”, but “born of water”. Which to them means the same thing. Or rather, “born of water” equals “born again”. Therefore, you need baptism for salvation. By now, though, I hope you recognize the decreasing support Baptismal Regeneration has from the Bible. Therefore, that can’t be what Jesus says here in John 3. If you’re thinking that, great! Let me show you what Jesus actually means by “born of water”.
Don’t Say the Word
First of all, Nicodemus knew and understood the concept of baptism. As I mentioned in my last post, converting from one religion to another frequently required baptism. And Judaism was no exception! Furthermore, Nicodemus knew who John the Baptist was and what he preached. So, why did Jesus not come right out and say “baptism”? Instead, he cryptically says other stuff and greatly confuses Nicodemus. Granted, Jesus said many cryptic things over the course of His ministry. However, trying to read “baptism” in this passage actually comes as a stretch. More so than many of Jesus’ other cryptic statements. I honestly fear that people want to read “baptism” in here to get Jesus to say it. And putting words into Jesus’ mouth is a dangerous game to play.
Another thing here. The cross and the resurrection hadn’t happened yet. The Old Covenant still applied to Nicodemus at this point. Right? I bring this up because believers in Baptismal Regeneration say that the thief on the cross didn’t need baptism because he was still under the Old Covenant. So why would Jesus tell Nicodemus that he needed baptism and not the thief?
Born of Water and Spirit
The key phrase in this verse is “born of water and Spirit”. Understanding this phrase will clear up the whole of this passage. Two common interpretations exist surrounding this phrase. And doing my research, I found a great explanation of them both which I quote here along with a link to the original article.
The first is that being “born of water” is being used by Jesus to refer to natural birth (with water referring to the amniotic fluid that surrounds the baby in the womb) and that being born of the “Spirit” indicates spiritual birth. While that is certainly a possible interpretation of the term “born of water” and would seem to fit the context of Nicodemus’ question about how a man could be born “when he is old,” it is not the best interpretation given the context of this passage. After all, Jesus was not talking about the difference between natural birth and spiritual birth. What He was doing was explaining to Nicodemus his need to be “born from above” or “born again.”
The second common interpretation of this passage and the one that best fits the overall context, not only of this passage but of the Bible as a whole, is the one that sees the phrase “born of water and the Spirit” as both describing different aspects of the same spiritual birth, or of what it means to be “born again” or “born from above.” So, when Jesus told Nicodemus that he must “be born of water and the Spirit,” He was not referring to literal water (i.e. baptism or the amniotic fluid in the womb), but was referring to the need for spiritual cleansing or renewal. Throughout the Old Testament (Psalm 51:2,7; Ezekiel 36:25) and the New Testament (John 13:10; 15:3; 1 Corinthians 6:11; Hebrews 10:22), water is often used figuratively of spiritual cleansing or regeneration that is brought forth by the Holy Spirit, through the Word of God, at the moment of salvation (Ephesians 5:26; Titus 3:5)
Does John 3:5 teach that baptism is necessary for salvation? (GotQuestions.org)
The second interpretation here fits the overall context of John 3 as well as the overall context of the Bible. And, yes, I’m going to explain why with 4 solid reasons.
First, Nicodemus found the literal interpretation incomprehensible. After all, it isn’t possible for a person to re-enter his mother’s womb to be literally born again. So, Jesus restates what He told Nicodemus, though He makes a distinction between flesh and Spirit this time (see verse 6).
Second (going off of Jesus’ restatement), the Greek used here indicates that the phrases “born again”, “born from above”, and “born of water and Spirit” are three different ways of saying the same thing.
Third, the grammar here strongly suggests that “born of water and Spirit” is a single action rather than two (born of water and born of Spirit) like some people think. Therefore, rather than two separate births (like Nicodemus thought) we have one. And that is the Spiritual birth necessary to see God and experience His kingdom. The necessity of this Spiritual birth is so strong, that Jesus said it three times in three different ways to get His point across.
Fourth, water is frequently used symbolically throughout the Bible to refer to the cleansing power of Holy Spirit in our lives. Even the Old Testament makes reference to that cleansing power (see Isaiah 44:3 for one such example). Even more so throughout the New Testament – I like John 7:38-39 as an example.
But I’m Jewish
Another thing from this passage surrounds the actual phrase “born again”. I mentioned it in my last post as well, but it’s worth reiterating here. When Gentiles converted to Judaism, they were declared “born again”. So, the phrase didn’t originate with Jesus. Nicodemus heard of it and maybe even said it himself to a convert. This reveals that his confusion extended into this idea of “I’m already Jewish, I follow all the laws, I don’t need to be born again.” And that’s when he flipped to physical birth.
Don’t You Understand?
Last thing from John 3, I promise! Jesus rebukes Nicodemus for not understanding what He’s talking about (John 3:10). What did Jesus expect Nicodemus to know and understand? How about one of the key Scriptures that foretold of the New Covenant and Spiritual rebirth, Ezekiel 36:25-27.
I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws. (NIV)
Nicodemus and the Pharisees studied the Scriptures and discussed them and even waited the Messiah. But they missed Him. That’s the rebuke of Jesus to Nicodemus here. Not that he didn’t understand the concept of water baptism. But that he missed that the promised spiritual cleansing had come. And without it, he would miss the kingdom of God as well.
Romans 6:3-5
Finally reached the last of the major verses that believers in Baptismal Regeneration use as evidence that the Bible teaches it.
Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.
For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly also be united with him in a resurrection like his. (NIV)
As with many of the others in this list, these verses appear to support Baptismal Regeneration – at least on the surface. But just like the others, appearances can be deceiving. And like the others, I intend to peel back the layers and lay bare the Truth of the simple gospel it contains.
Baptized Into…
There’s a phrase in here that causes some confusion. Baptized into. What does that mean here? Well, if you search the New Testament, you’ll find a few other places that phrase comes into play. And as I talked about in my commentary on Acts 2:38, how a word or phrase is translated in other places in the Bible can inform how it should be translated elsewhere. And since there’s only three, I put them up here in full. All from the NIV, by the way.
They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. 1 Corinthians 10:2
For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. Galatians 3:27
For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. 1 Corinthians 12:13
Disclaimer: 1 Corinthians 12:13 does not contain the phrase “baptized into” in the NIV. The NIV restructures it a little differently and uses the phrase “so as to form” in place of the word “into”. Which helps me explain the phrase “baptized into” a little easier, I think. The focus of all three of these verses is identification with the person or thing the people are being baptized into. Whether that’s “into Moses”, “into Christ”, or “into one body” (as 1 Corinthians 12:13 reads in other translations). In all of them, people identify themselves with a person, set of beliefs, or community by baptizing themselves into them. Which goes back to an earlier statement I made about many religions of that time period requiring baptism when converting.
And given that in all other cases of the phrase “baptized into” interprets as identification, it makes sense to apply the same reasoning to Romans. And what do you get when you do that? You get us identifying with Jesus’ death. This sounds a lot like Paul’s statement in Galatians 2:20, “My old self has been crucified with Christ”. I don’t think anyone reading this (including believers in Baptismal Regeneration) would disagree with that we spiritually partake in Jesus’ death when we receive Him as Lord and Savior.
The Context
According to an article I read by George Ippolito, we need to be aware of three contexts when reading the Bible: 1) The immediate context; 2) The book context; and 3) The Biblical context. Applying this strategy to Romans 6:3-5, I find some interesting results that better inform my interpretation of these verses, results that do not include Baptismal Regeneration.
- The immediate context. In the immediate context, I see no reason to believe that these verses refer to water baptism. In fact, I see no mention of water at all! As I mentioned elsewhere, water baptism is but one type of baptism. And here the immediate context strongly suggests Spiritual Baptism is what’s taking place. (As an aside, Ippolito mentions a third type of baptism as being baptized into a suffering like Jesus.)
- The book context. Due to the length of the book of Romans, I limit it to chapters 3-5 since chapter 6 follows all that and Paul would have been writing stream of consciousness. And this entire section of Romans says a lot about salvation and justification by faith alone. This makes it rather illogical that Paul would abruptly throw in a couple of comments (not even the clearest) about needing baptism to be saved. Here’s a list of verses for you to read supporting justification by faith. Romans 3:21-22, 26, 28, 30; 4:3, 11, 13-14, 16, 20-25; and 5:1. And all that from the first 5 chapters of Romans! Paul argued heavily that in both the Old Testament and New Testament (now), God made us righteous through justification by faith.
- The broader Biblical context. I’m not going to spend much time here, but the Bible argues justification by faith alone all throughout. And I’ve spent two blogs now showing how the Bible doesn’t teach Baptismal Regeneration.
Summary
In summary about Romans, both the phrasing and the contexts support a teaching of Spiritual baptism and justification by faith alone. Reading Baptismal Regeneration into these verses is once again unwarranted.
Wrapping Up
Whew! Probably my longest blog to date, but I needed to go through all these verses in some detail. And believe it or not, so much more can be and has been said about these. I barely put a dent in it all. But as you can see, there is no reason to believe that any of these verses teach Baptismal Regeneration. It’s pretty plain to me that none of them do and I hope you see that as well. And without these verses to back them up, believers in Baptismal Regeneration don’t have a leg to stand on.
Two blogs and a few thousand words later and I’m still not done with my arguments regarding Baptismal Regeneration! Seriously? Yep. I plan on releasing one more blog on this topic. It’ll be out on March 25th, on the 1st birthday of Tilling and Planting. That’s right, this blog turns 1 year on March 25th (😁). So please subscribe if you haven’t and please spread the word! I’m looking to expand my readership and exposure. I long for people to understand the truth and the hope that they already believe in. That they (you) may not fall into temptation, deception, despair, or anything else that the devil wants us to fall into, so we become ineffective for God. Currently, I operate by word of mouth. Nothing else. That might change in the future, but for now I rely entirely upon you. Thank you for reading and God bless you.
Leave a Reply