Category: Apologetics

Intro

Here in my final post regarding Baptism and Baptismal Regeneration, I give you some parting thoughts about the subject. Some logical problems that I challenge you to think about and then decide for yourself if Baptismal Regeneration can truly be compatible with what the Bible says about God and Salvation. (To catch up on any posts you missed, click here.)

Incapable of Baptism

Let’s think for a moment about people who physically cannot get baptized. Take for example an elderly woman dying of cancer in the hospital. She’s been running from God for so many years. Her children, on the other hand, love Jesus and have prayed for her all these years to be saved. And here, on her deathbed, she chooses Jesus. So, she prays, repents, and accepts the free gift offered to her by God. The joy and peace she receives in her final hours lift her spirits and those of her children. However, because of her physical state, her doctor won’t allow her to be moved for baptism. Now let’s say that her children don’t consider baptism necessary anyway so they don’t press the matter or do anything else to replace immersion in water. She dies a few days later. Does she go to Heaven, or Hell?

How to Handle

How do believers in Baptismal Regeneration handle such a situation? By sprinkling them with water. And that suffices. Let me repeat that: They sprinkle water on them and that suffices. Sprinkling water on people equals dunking them under water? Writing that sentence makes the logical parts of me squirm and groan. But then again, centuries ago people decided that dunking infants under water wasn’t safe, so they started sprinkling them with water to cleanse them of their sinful nature that they’re born with. Unsurprisingly that carried over to that working for anyone. Though they still prefer immersion – wonder why if all you need to do is get your hand wet and flick them with some water. In fact, let’s make it fun. Let’s just get water guns and squirt all the people for Baptism Sunday! 😄

But in all seriousness, how can dunking people under water equal sprinkling them? Especially since the New Testament says nothing about sprinkling of water when discussing baptism. Nothing, zilch, nada. And just ignore modern dictionary definitions of “baptism” – which include sprinkling – because the root Greek word means “immersion”. I do acknowledge that many Jewish cleansing rituals include the sprinkling of water, but none of those things carried over to New Testament believers. So, why does it exist without Biblical precedent? Exactly for situations like the one I mentioned earlier. Believers in Baptismal Regeneration need sprinkling of water in order for their doctrine to still work for everyone. Did you catch that? They need, need sprinkling for baptism. What does that sound like? Adding to salvation. Adding to what Christ accomplished on the cross.

Read my earlier posts on baptism for a more in-depth analysis on how this doctrine makes salvation works-based.

Heaven or Hell

How would believers in Baptismal Regeneration answer that question about where the elderly woman went? Based on my personal interactions with them, they would answer that question with “Hell”. To their credit, they’d be remorseful about it, but honest. However, this again goes to show how Baptismal Regeneration inherently makes salvation works-based. And how it claims that Jesus’ sacrifice wasn’t enough on its own. We need to do something to complete it.

In conclusion to the first of the logical problems of Baptismal Regeneration, if a person desires baptism but can’t for one reason or another and want water sprinkled on them, I don’t have a problem with it. So long as they understand that it adds nothing to their salvation. I personally don’t care and I don’t believe God does either. After all, God looks at the heart (see 1 Samuel 16:7). And if their heart is for Him and fully trusting in Jesus for salvation, then sprinkle them with water. I’ll support it.

The Gap Problem

The next of the logical problems for Baptismal Regeneration I call “The Gap Problem”. What is this? Well, Baptismal Regeneration teaches that a person receives the remission of their sins (i.e. born again) during baptism. The “gap” comes from a period of time when a person might have a measure of faith but is forced to wait until they can arrive at a site with a water source to be baptized in order to be saved (if they believe that’s true).

The Gap Example

For example, John meets Dave for lunch out and says, “I’ve been reading the Bible you gave me, and I want to be saved.” Dave replies, “That’s fantastic! Let’s go down to the river. While I’m baptizing you, we can pray for the remission of your sins since this is how salvation works.” John says, “Okay.” Though in his heart he questions the necessity of baptism since what he has read in the Bible makes it sound like all he really needs to do is believe. John agrees that the Bible places importance on baptism, but he didn’t think it equated it with salvation. But then again, Dave’s the expert, not him. On their way to the river, a car runs a red light, hits Dave’s car, and kills John instantly.

Dave’s belief in Baptismal Regeneration led to him restricting the timing and location of John’s salvation to the river. This led to a gap in time in which John had some measure of belief – but hadn’t made the full commitment – and when he was going to be saved. This gap time allowed for Satan to take his life before he made the actual commitment to follow Christ. Thus, John has died in his sins and will spend eternity separated from God.

I believe this to be a major problem with Baptismal Regeneration. You run this type of risk all the time. Churches who preach this had better be prepared to baptize people spontaneously any day they are open to the public. If they don’t, I cry foul. That defines hypocrisy. Claiming you need baptism for salvation and then not being able to provide it in church when people give their lives to God at a random Wednesday service, or a Tuesday night Bible study.

The Flip Example

On the flip side, take that previous example and assume that Dave does not believe in Baptismal Regeneration. John meets Dave for lunch and says, “I’ve been reading that Bible you gave me, and I want to be saved.” Dave replies, “That’s fantastic! Let’s pray for the remission of your sins right now.” They pray and John puts his faith in Christ. Afterwards, Dave says, “You know, Jesus commands all believers to be water baptized as a way of publicly identifying yourself with Christ, so let’s go down to the river and baptize you.” John agrees – the Bible certainly emphasizes it. On their way to the river, a car runs a red light, hits Dave’s car, and kills John instantly. In this scenario, John already put his faith in Christ and received the remission of his sins. Therefore, he will spend eternity with God instead of apart.

Do you see the difference? And the problem? I mentioned that churches that preach this should always be ready to baptize people. But so should every single person who believes in it. And this leads into the next of the four logical problems I find with Baptismal Regeneration.

Who’s in Control?

The prior problem also highlights another problem. Did you pick it up? Here it is spelled out: People that embrace this doctrine effectively control when and where a person is saved. Does that scare you? It should. The Catholic Church used this amongst other things to control the masses for centuries. The Catholic Church claimed you had to be a part of the church and do XYZ to be saved. XYZ included various sacraments such as baptism, taking communion, going to confessions, and more. And the church controlled when and where these sacraments took place. Catholic priests forgave people’s sins. The church claimed it could kick people out of Heaven via excommunication from the church.

Granted, Protestants who embrace Baptismal Regeneration oppose what the Catholic Church did and say that they don’t claim such power or authority over people’s salvation. And to a certain extent that’s true. They don’t require ALL the sacraments, and they don’t require continual need to perform all these rituals. Plus, they don’t emphasize a specific denomination nor confession to priests or pastors, etc. You get it. They don’t require nearly as much as the Catholic Church used to.

The Truth

However, to tell a person “To receive salvation, you must confess and repent of your sins at the same time of your baptism” means the same thing as “That’s great that you want to be saved right now, but you only get saved when repenting of your sins while someone baptizes you”. Which puts that person’s salvation off to a future moment, i.e. telling them a time of salvation. That gives the saved person control over when a person receives salvation, regardless of whether they recognize it.

In addition to the when, they control the where. This is a little more obvious since there is a limited number of locations where you can baptize a person. If you aren’t already in a church building with a baptismal, or a house with a bathtub, or next to a lake, river, or other body of water, then the saved person has to take the seeking person to another location, i.e. controlling where a person is saved. I give people who believe in Baptismal Regeneration the benefit of the doubt. I think that most people who embrace this are ignorant of the fact that by their words and actions, they are controlling when and where that person’s salvation occurs and opening the door for Satan to steal, kill, and destroy that person before they get to that location at that time. (Which goes back to the Gap Problem from earlier.)

In Summation

To summarize, by believing this doctrine a person ignorantly takes some measure of control over another person’s salvation. Jesus commands us to proclaim the message of salvation. But that doesn’t give us the right to dictate when or where people can receive salvation. Unfortunately, across denominations there exists a mindset of only being saved at church events. (Unintentional, but that’s how society sees it.) God help us all overcome that mindset and show people it doesn’t matter. However, when people add Baptismal Regeneration to the message, it complicates matters. Because now instead of an altar call in a land-locked park of “Come forward and surrender your life to the Lord,” it becomes “If you want to surrender your life to the Lord, come to this address at this time and there you can receive salvation at the time of your baptism.” Can you see the difference?

This approach turns some people off since they may wonder why they can’t do it in a park with no water. It creates greater confusion and more questions. Which could manifest more from the children. And we claim that all you need is child-like faith (see Matthew 18:3). After all, the Bible claims children can grasp and understand salvation. Granted, believers in Baptismal Regeneration probably will never do outreaches somewhere they can’t immediately baptize people. However, this type of approach creates more limitations on salvation. And that creates more control – even though ignorant and unintentional they may be.

What Kind of Salvation Plan?

The fourth, and final, of the Baptismal Regeneration logical problems has to do with what kind of salvation plan the God of the Bible would create. Yes, I believe that looking at the nature of God and who He is will tell us all we need to know about what His plan of salvation would look like.

God’s Desires

First, God is a God of love. And not just any kind of love. Unconditional love that desires only the very best for those He loves. Second, God desires everyone to come to salvation (1 Timothy 2:1-4, 2 Corinthians 5:18-20). If God desires the very best for us and desires everyone to come to salvation, wouldn’t it be logical for God to make the plan of salvation as simple as possible and with as few limitations as possible? Yes, He would! Therein lies the problem with Baptismal Regeneration.

The Problem

As I discussed earlier, Baptismal Regeneration places limits on the where and when salvation can occur. A second person must be present, and they must be at a location where water can be used to baptize (sorry soldier on the battlefield). Those are some hefty and unnecessary limitations for God to require. After all, large parts of the world don’t have nearby water sources. (Looking at you Sahara Desert!) And large parts of the world don’t have modern conveniences that would allow for quick access to water. God is God and can create any plan He wants and make any requirement He wants. But if God truly wants the best, and truly desires all to become saved, then the extra requirements make no sense and contradicts God’s desires.

The Plan

Lastly, God intended for the new covenant to be 100% handled by Him since mankind messes up anything requiring them to do things to get God’s forgiveness. Just think about all the requirements of the old covenant and how many additional things the religious leaders of Jesus’ day added on. Or even the amount of stuff the Catholic Church added on. How is Baptismal Regeneration any different from those? When the Bible talks about the new covenant, it always points to what God planned and what Jesus fulfilled. It’s all about God doing all the work for all time so we wouldn’t have to do anything except receive it by faith – which has always been His requirement (Genesis 15:6, Romans 4, Hebrews 11, Ephesians 2:8-9).

Wrapping Up

Given all that I’ve written now about the subject, I hope you see clearly the truth that Baptism is not necessary to be saved. These logical problems that I’ve shared about Baptismal Regeneration in this final post are not the only ones out there. And truly my thoughts in this post and my previous ones are incomplete in their analysis of the subject. I’d encourage you to read more about it.

Wow! It’s been 1 year since I published my first blog post! Thank you to all who have been following me this entire year! To those who have not been following me the whole time, thank you for starting. All your support means a lot to me. Please spread the word and share these posts with family and friends. As I said in my last post, I only get around through word of mouth. I rely on all of you to help increase visibility. I’m working on ways to get the word out and one of those ways is asking you to help. So, please subscribe to not miss a post or any update I might have for you. Thank you again!

As a last comment, while I’m not in need of money, running this blog isn’t free. So, if you want to help me ensure that money never gets in the way of writing, consider donating. I would greatly appreciate it.

Outro

If you enjoyed this post, please consider doing one or all of these things. First, subscribe if you haven’t. If you have, thank you! Second, spread the word. Send these to everyone you know and encourage them to read and subscribe. This blog is purely word of mouth right now. I rely on you, my readers, to help me get more readers. And third, please consider donating. It’ll enable me to continue to offer regular posts.

Feel free to leave a comment with any questions about what I’ve written, any additional comments about the post, or if there’s a topic you’d like me to write about. Before doing that though, be sure to check out all my posts here and see if I’ve covered it already. And if you find I’ve done it already but aren’t satisfied or still have more questions, let me know!

Thank you for reading this! I greatly appreciate each one of you. Until next time, God bless you all!

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.

1. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved.
2. 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.

1. 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.)
2. 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.
3. 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.

Outro

If you enjoyed this post, please consider doing one or all of these things. First, subscribe if you haven’t. If you have, thank you! Second, spread the word. Send these to everyone you know and encourage them to read and subscribe. This blog is purely word of mouth right now. I rely on you, my readers, to help me get more readers. And third, please consider donating. It’ll enable me to continue to offer regular posts.

Feel free to leave a comment with any questions about what I’ve written, any additional comments about the post, or if there’s a topic you’d like me to write about. Before doing that though, be sure to check out all my posts here and see if I’ve covered it already. And if you find I’ve done it already but aren’t satisfied or still have more questions, let me know!

Thank you for reading this! I greatly appreciate each one of you. Until next time, God bless you all!

Intro

I said in my last post that I would try and get these out in a shorter timeframe. But it didn’t happen with this second post in my baptism series. Turns out that there isn’t a whole lot of time left when moving into a new house and trying to unpack and organize everything. Who knew? Anyway, I’m continuing my series on baptism with talking about Baptismal Regeneration. I only briefly made mention of it in my last post and now I intend to go into more depth. As I said before, Baptismal Regeneration is the belief that one must be water baptized in order to be saved. In these next 2 or 3 posts, I aim to show you how the Bible does not teach that despite what some people believe.

Culture

When talking about baptism, one must take into account the culture of the day in which the early church existed. It’s important to note that Jesus did not come up with baptism. His cousin John certainly didn’t. In fact, the concept of baptism existed for centuries. The Jews dipped themselves under water 3 times before entering the temple. When Gentiles converted to Judaism, they performed that same rite and afterwards were declared “born again”. As a matter of fact, baptism often signified conversion from one religion to another. In some Greek cults, that baptism occurred in animal blood. Gross.

All that to say, everyone knew and understood the concept of baptism. This makes it understandable why the early church emphasized it so heavily. After all, if you claim to believe, but refuse to perform a simple rite of passage to demonstrate that (not to mention a command of the one you follow), just how genuine is your faith?

All-Sufficient?

One major problem with Baptismal Regeneration is that it inherently denies the sufficiency of Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross. Yep, you heard me. Now, I don’t think anyone who believes this doctrine would actually make that claim. They’d deny it outright. However, let’s think about it logically. On the cross, Jesus said, “It is finished.” Furthermore, Paul states that salvation is by faith through grace and not by works (Ephesians 2:8-9). If we are required to take a physical act in order to be saved (such as getting water baptized), then that makes salvation at least partly works-based. More on this later. This means that what Christ did on the cross was insufficient and we have to do something in order to finish it. And if Jesus made the claim that it was finished but was technically wrong…. That would make Jesus a liar. And that’s a HUGE problem.

I referenced one of Paul’s statements in Ephesians earlier, but that one isn’t even the heavy hitter. Paul’s writings in Romans 4-5 explain in great detail how we are justified by faith and not by anything we can do.

If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. What does Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness. Romans 4:2-5 (NIV)

Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand….Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him! Romans 5:1-2, 9 (NIV)

I’m only giving you a sample of Paul’s argument. I encourage you to read the first 5 chapters of Romans and take note of how much Paul pushes faith and grace with no mention of baptism. Many people consider the book of Romans to be like another gospel. Truly it contains some of the best descriptors of the gospel and salvation – all without mention of the necessity of baptism. If baptism was truly necessary, wouldn’t Paul have mentioned it?

Works-Based

I want to expand upon the works-based nature of Baptismal Regeneration. Because many proponents claim that it’s not. I argue it is. Here’s why. Admittedly it doesn’t claim that you must continually work to be saved or remain saved. However, it says to receive God’s gift of salvation, we must do something to make our confession and repentance “stick”. That is the definition of works-based salvation.

We tend to think of works-based as the life-long, works-only, hoping to get to Heaven someday. In that sense, proponents of Baptismal Regeneration aren’t advocating a works-based salvation. However, they advocate that your heart posture and faith before the Lord do nothing without baptism. So, proponents push for a works-based salvation without calling it that because it doesn’t match what we think of as works-based. But regardless of the number of works attached to salvation, it contradicts what the Bible says about faith.

And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him. Hebrews 11:6 (NIV)

The Bible names various things that pleases God. However, this is the only location that says how a person will never please God, no matter how many “good things” he does that to please Him. And that one way is: lack of faith. Nearly every time Jesus rebukes or chastises His disciples, it is due to a lack of faith, for example, the storm where Jesus was asleep on the boat. Jesus woke up, rebuked the storm, then asked the disciples where their faith was.

A Gift

To further emphasize the works-based nature of Baptismal Regeneration, take a look at these two passages from Romans.

Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. Romans 4:4 (NIV)

For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 6:23 (NIV)

In these passages, we see Paul calling salvation a gift of God. And he also states that one does not work for a gift – else it becomes an obligation. And the Bible refers to salvation as a gift repeatedly, I just referenced one such instance here. I mean, how can we do something to receive a gift besides accept it with an outstretched hand and gratitude in our hearts? It’s like me giving my brother-in-law a Christmas gift and then telling him, “Do ten push-ups if you want this gift.” If I did that, it’s no longer a free gift.

Faith In….

Do you see why I claim Baptismal Regeneration is works-based and denies the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice? Preaching this doctrine runs the risk of people placing their faith in the act of baptism rather than faith in Jesus. And that’s dangerous. That leads to people having a false belief in their own salvation. Not good.

To further illustrate this, I know someone who got re-baptized because the first time they were was not for the “purpose of salvation”. Therefore, they had to get baptized again – for the purpose of salvation – in order to be saved. This person had faith in Jesus for many years. Yet, came to believe that wasn’t enough and needed baptism to make their salvation genuine. That worries me. Not for that person’s salvation – I believe in the security of their salvation. But for anyone who grows up hearing about it. Because of the risk I mentioned earlier about people having a false belief in their salvation.

Paul’s Bold Statements

In the last section I mentioned that Paul left out discussions of baptism in his writings in Romans. I take it one step further here and wish to point out this incredibly bold statement he makes in 1 Corithians.

I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one can say that you were baptized in my name. (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with wisdom and eloquence, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. 1 Corinthians 1:14-17 (NIV)

I especially want to highlight verse 17, “For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel”. Here, Paul makes a clear separation between baptism and the gospel. After all, Paul says later in this book that it is the gospel that saves you (1 Corinthians 15:1-2). If baptism is indeed necessary for salvation, then why would Paul not be called to baptize? It makes no sense.

I wish to further illustrate this using the deductive reasoning formula: if A=B and B=C, then A=C. Only let’s make G the gospel, B baptism, and S salvation. So then, if G = S (1 Corinthians 15:1-2) and B = S (Baptismal Regeneration), then G = B (baptism is a necessary part of the gospel), right? Yet by excluding baptism from his definitions of the gospel, Paul says that G ≠ B (baptism isn’t necessary). And if that’s the case, then either G = S is wrong, or B = S is wrong. And Paul explicitly says that G = S (1 Corinthians 15:1-2, Romans 1:16). Therefore, B = S must be wrong. It’s impossible to have a case in which both G = S and B = S are true and still have G ≠ B. In summation, G = S and G ≠ B, therefore B ≠ S.

Wrapping Up

I’m hoping you’re starting to see that salvation is by faith alone in Jesus’ sacrifice alone. I only give general, Biblical arguments here regarding baptism, salvation, and Baptismal Regeneration. In my next post, I am going to address the major Scripture passages that believers in this doctrine cite as proof of Baptismal Regeneration. Watch for it to come out and don’t forget to subscribe so you don’t miss it!

Outro

If you enjoyed this post, please consider doing one or all of these things. First, subscribe if you haven’t. If you have, thank you! Second, spread the word. Send these to everyone you know and encourage them to read and subscribe. This blog is purely word of mouth right now. I rely on you, my readers, to help me get more readers. And third, please consider donating. It’ll enable me to continue to offer regular posts.

Feel free to leave a comment with any questions about what I’ve written, any additional comments about the post, or if there’s a topic you’d like me to write about. Before doing that though, be sure to check out all my posts here and see if I’ve covered it already. And if you find I’ve done it already but aren’t satisfied or still have more questions, let me know!

Thank you for reading this! I greatly appreciate each one of you. Until next time, God bless you all!