Baptismal
Regeneration
Dear friends,
baptism is a commandment of God if we don’t obey we sin. However baptism is a
sacrament just like holy communion or in the Old
Testament circumcision. A sacrament is only a visible sign what happened
inwardly. If a true Christian doesn’t get a chance to baptize but the person
dies, he is saved. According to churches that believe baptismal regeneration,
that person is not saved. During this coronavirus
many are getting saved through fear and accepting the gospel though online
preaching, according to those who hold baptismal regeneration, it’s too bad,
they are not saved unless they are baptized.
These churches believe that the blood
of Jesus is not really sufficient to “cleanse us from all sin”. (See I John 1:9). If we confess our sins, he is
faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all
unrighteousness.
Instead, they believe that salvation
must be obtained through both the good work of Christ on the cross, and through
the good work of man in baptism. People who hold to this false doctrine believe
that Man therefore becomes a “co-redeemer” together with Christ. They believe
in salvation by the grace of God plus the works of man
“For
you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you
were redeemed…but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or
defect.” So wrote the Apostle Peter to the early Christians (1 Peter 1:18-19).
He, as all the other Apostles, believed that we are redeemed, cleansed,
forgiven, in the blood of Jesus Christ. Yet, there are many today who would
replace the blood of Christ with the Baptism. They teach that we are
regenerated, made alive, cleansed, by water baptism. Some insist that it must
be baptism by immersion; others say that sprinkling accomplishes the same
thing. In either case, the work of Jesus Christ on the cross cannot be said to
be finished and efficacious until man does something–in this case, adds his
work of baptism to the work of God in Christ. Baptism is said to be the means
of salvation.
Paul
describes the lost man’s condition with the graphic language of death. “As for
you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins” he tells the Ephesians
(2:1). How can a dead man be made alive? Only by the work of
God, just as he told the Colossians, “When you were dead in your sins and in
the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive
with Christ” (Colossians 2:13). This deadness has tremendous results
according to the inspired Apostle. First, it means that there is no man who, in
and of himself, seeks after God: “There is no one who understands, no one who
seeks God” (Romans 3:11). Likewise, there is no man who understands the things
of God unless he is first changed from being “natural” or “carnal” to “spiritual”:
“The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the
Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them,
because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Corinthians 2:14). Paul says that
when men are alienated from God, they are His enemies in their minds
(Colossians 1:21). These are strong words, and they well describe the hatred
and enmity that exists in the heart of the man who continues to live in his
rebellion against God. What is even more striking is Paul’s absolute belief
that this condition cannot be changed by man–not only is it not the natural
man’s desire to be at peace with the Holy One, but it is beyond his capacity to
do so, even if he were so inclined. Note Paul’s words in Romans 8:5-8:
For
those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the
flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For
the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and
peace, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not
subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so; and
those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
Those
who hold to baptismal regeneration would have us to believe that one passes
from being a “natural man” to a “spiritual man” through baptism; yet, from
whence does this desire to be baptized come? Is God not pleased when we are
baptized? Of course. Yet, Paul said that the one who
is still fleshly cannot please God. If such a person is the enemy of
God, enslaved to sin, how is it that he is able to do such a spiritual and
pleasing thing as to desire to be baptized? Obviously, this is impossible.
Baptism signifies our death to the old way of life and our resurrection to new
life in Christ, as Paul uses it in Romans 6:1-4.
Unless we have died to sin, and been raised with Christ in reality prior to
our baptism, the symbol becomes meaningless. So we see that the position that baptism
as the means of regeneration and forgiveness ignores the most basic teachings
of Scripture regarding man’s inability. In taking the position they do,
the baptismal regenerationists not only make man
capable of things he is not, but they reduce God’s grace to a mere aid, and
make the death of Christ a theory that is dependent upon man’s act of
obedience, rather than the finished and effective work that the Bible teaches
it to be (Hebrews 10:10-14).
When
we keep in mind the foundational truth that man is unable to save himself, but
that salvation is the work of God, we are able to understand why it is said
that we are justified by God’s grace (Titus 3:7), justified by the blood of
Christ (Romans 5:9), and justified by faith. Grace, and the blood of Christ, are both things that are beyond man’s ability to manipulate;
and faith, if it is true, saving faith, is the gift of God as well. Hence, we
are justified by God’s action, not by any action of our own. Never is it
said that we are justified by baptism.
In
light of the fact that any review of the central passages of the New Testament
that directly deal with how a man is made right with God will lead us to
recognize our own inability and the great ability of our God to save, what is
to be said concerning those passages, drawn from one context or another, that
seem to indicate that we are saved or forgiven by baptism? First, we must point
out that it is common for some to confuse the *importance* of baptism with the
idea of the *necessity* of baptism. Indeed, often the fact that the New
Testament takes for granted that all believers will be baptized as a profession
of their faith is taken to mean that baptism is *how* they became believers in
the first place! We confess baptism to be vitally important–the Scriptures are
clear in this. That Paul can use baptism is a sign and symbol of our spiritual
union with Christ (Romans 6:1-4) shows that it is his assumption that all
believers will be obedient in baptism. We do not, by asserting the proper
understanding of baptism, in any way denigrate it as an ordinance given by Christ
to His Church. But just as the holy Law of God was misused by
the Pharisees in Jerusalem, and the Judaizers in
Galatia, so baptism has been misused by modern proponents of the works-oriented
system of baptismal regeneration. Therefore, just as Paul often asserted
his great respect for and love of the law of God while asserting its true
nature and purpose, so we, too, assert our great respect for Christian baptism
while asserting its proper place in God’s work of salvation and sanctification.
We shall center our attention on three passages of Scripture that are often
placed before us as “clear testimony” to the concept of baptismal regeneration.
These passages are Acts 2:38, 22:16, and 1 Peter 3:21.
Peter
replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ
for the forgiveness of sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off–for all
whom the Lord our God will call” (Acts 2:38-39, NIV).
This
is probably the most oft-quoted passage in the great baptism debate. Yet, when
we read verse 39, we hear again the same concept that we saw above, which Peter
himself will assert at a later date (1 Peter 1:2), and that will reappear in
the Acts narrative, too (Acts 13:48)–salvation comes through the work of God’s
elective choice, not the actions or plans of men. Baptism does nothing for
those who are not called of God. But, one might say, what if one is called of
God? Does this passage then not say that baptism is for the remission of
sins?
A
tremendously large number of interpretations have been set forth on this
passage over the years. We believe the simplest and most consistent manner of
approach is to ask a question that is frequently not asked at all: we here have
a short snippet of what was obviously a longer sermon by Peter. Does Peter
elsewhere tell us, in plain language, how our sins are remitted, how we are
cleansed from our burden of guilt? Certainly! We began our article with the
quotation of 1 Peter 1:18-19, where Peter directly teaches that we are cleansed
by the blood of the spotless Lamb of God, Jesus Christ. Do we then have
sufficient basis to identify the waters of baptism with the blood of Christ? Surely not. Sins are remitted through our participation in
the death of Jesus Christ–it is by the “one time offering” of Jesus Christ that
we are made whole (Hebrews 10:10-14). What of baptism then? It is the symbol,
the outward representation before men of what the Spirit of God has done in our
hearts (Titus 3:5-7). Unless we have first had our sins remitted in the blood
of Christ, the symbol of baptism is meaningless. But doesn’t this passage say
that baptism is for the remission of sins? Yes, but what does “for”
mean? We feel that Dr. A. T. Robertson’s comments from earlier this century are
very meaningful:
This
phrase is the subject of endless controversy as men look at it from the
standpoint of sacramental or of evangelical theology. In themselves the words
can express aim or purpose for that use of “eis” does
exist as in 1 Cor. 2:7….But then another usage exists which is just as good
Greek as the use of “eis” for aim or purpose. It is
seen in Matt. 10:41 in three examples “eis onoma prophetou, diakaiou, mathetou” where it
cannot be purpose or aim, but rather the basis or ground, on the basis of the
name of prophet, righteous man, disciple, because one is, etc. It is seen again
in Matt. 12:41 about the preaching of Jonah….They repented because of (or at)
the preaching of Jonah. The illustrations of both usages are numerous in the
N.T. and the Koine generally (Robertson, Grammar,
p. 592). One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is
essential to the remission of sins or not. My view is decidedly against the
idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament taught baptism as
essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission. So
I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned
(repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of
the forgiveness of sins which they had already received (A. T. Robertson, Word
Pictures in the New Testament, III:35-36).
The
point being that one can (and we believe should, if one believes in the
consistency of Scripture as a whole) understand Peter to be speaking of baptism
on the grounds of the remission of sins that comes through belief in the
name of Jesus Christ (Acts 10:43). But, someone will surely object, Peter
himself said that “baptism saves us” in 1 Peter 3:21. Let’s look at the passage
in context:
For
Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring
you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit,
through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison who were
disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark
was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through
water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also–not the
removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God.
It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and
is at God’s right hand–with angels, authorities and powers in submission to
him.
This
is one of the more difficult passages in Scripture, due to the reference to
Christ’s preaching to the “spirits in prison.” It is not our purpose to enter
into the controversy over this particular aspect of this passage at this time
(one might find Dr. Kenneth Wuest’s comments
enlightening; see Wuest, Word Studies in the Greek
New Testament II:92-109). Instead, we point out
that foremost in Peter’s mind, again, is the death of Christ as the sacrifice
for sin. Men are brought to God, not by what they do, but what God has done in
Christ Jesus (v. 18). Upon the heels of this he mentions God’s act of judgment
in the days of Noah. At that time eight souls were saved through water.
Peter then says that this water “symbolizes” baptism (as the NIV translates the
Greek term antitupon, literally, “antitype”). Baptism
now saves us, Peter says–just as the water “saved” Noah and his family. But, of
course, we know that Peter was not asserting that there was some salvific aspect to the flood waters themselves–God shut up
the ark, and God saved Noah and his family. But the water is a symbol, Peter
says, a symbol seen now in baptism. But is Peter dropping the symbolization so
as to make baptism the means of salvation? Certainly
not. Dr. Wuest has commented so well that we
give his words at length:
Water
baptism is clearly in the apostle’s mind, not the baptism by the Holy Spirit,
for he speaks of the waters of the flood as saving the inmates of the ark, and
in this verse, of baptism saving believers. But he says that it saves them only
as a counterpart. That is, water baptism is the counterpart of the reality,
salvation. It can only save as a counterpart, not actually. The Old Testament
sacrifices were counterparts of the reality, the Lord Jesus. They did not
actually save the believer, only in type. It is not argued here that these
sacrifices are analogous to Christian water baptism. The author is merely using
them as an illustration of the use of the word “counterpart.” So water baptism
only saves the believer in type. The Old Testament Jew was saved before he brought
the offering. That offering was only his outward testimony that he was placing
faith in the Lamb of God of whom these sacrifices were a type….Water baptism is
the outward testimony of the believer’s inward faith. The person is saved the
moment he places his faith in the Lord Jesus. Water baptism is the visible
testimony to his faith and the salvation he was given in answer to that faith.
Peter is careful to inform his readers that he is not teaching baptismal
regeneration, namely, that a person who submits to baptism is thereby
regenerated, for he says, “not the putting away of the filth of the flesh.”
Baptism, Peter explains, does not wash away the filth of the flesh, either in a
literal sense as a bath for the body, nor in a
metaphorical sense as a cleansing for the soul. No ceremonies really affect the
conscience. But he defines what he means by salvation, in the words “the answer
of a good conscience toward God,” and he explains how this is accomplished,
namely, “by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,” in that he believing sinner is
identified with Him in that resurrection.
What,
then, of Acts 22:16? Here, Ananias, having confronted the blinded Saul, says,
in context:
Then
he said: “The God of our fathers has chosen you to know his will and to see the
Righteous One and to hear words from his mouth. You will be his witness to all
men of what you have seen and heard. And now what are you waiting for? Get up,
be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.”
We
again see the common theme of the calling and sovereignty of God in the context
of this passage as well (“God…has chosen you”). Verse 16 presents us with a
significant construction in the original language. The terms “arise” and “call”
(anastas and epikalesamenos)
are aorist participles; “be baptized” and “be cleansed” (baptisai
and apolousai) are aorist imperatives. These terms
form two sets–the first, “arise and be baptized,” the second, “wash away your
sins, calling upon the name of the Lord,” or more literally, “wash away your
sins, having called upon the name of the Lord.” The remission of sins is
effected by calling upon the name of the Lord in this passage–it is
represented, as elsewhere, by baptism. One thing is for certain: given what we
have seen previously of Paul’s own theology of justification, he certainly did
not interpret Ananias to be teaching any form of baptismal regeneration!
The
believing thief on the cross was never baptized, yet Jesus said, today you
shall be in paradise with me. But people who advocate baptismal regeneration
says he was under the Old Testament covenant, yet they say, Jesus talking to
Nicodemus born again of water and the spirit means, water baptism. Nicodemus was way before the thief on the
cross, seems like according to their doctrine, Nicodemus needs to be baptized
but the thief on the cross way after got away!
Also
1 Corinthians 1;14-17 I thank God
that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so that no one may say that
you were baptized in my name. 16 (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized
anyone else.) 17 For
Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel,
The greatest apostle of the New Testament who
wrote 2/3’s of the New Testament, if water Baptism is essential for salvation,
he could have said, Christ did send me to preach the gospel and Baptize! But
the baptismal regeneration advocates say, Paul is talking here of divisions on
church not on Baptism. It is true Paul is talking here on divisions but why
Paul did not emphasize on Baptism?
In
conclusion, we must again insist that the Scriptures must be taken as a
whole–when we find in the direct, clear statements of Scripture truths that are
contradictory to assumptions based upon passing comments, we must take
the clear statements over the assumptions. In the issue of salvation, we must
take the clear statements of Scripture regarding the work of the Spirit of God
in regenerating lost sinners seriously. By teaching baptismal regeneration,
people do despite not only to the sovereignty of God and the finished work of
Christ, but to the real purpose and meaning of baptism as well. While some like
to refer to the evangelical doctrine of baptism as a “mere symbol,” we respond
by pointing out that an ordinance, given by Christ to His Church, in which the
great and marvelous work of God in salvation is pictured for all to see is not properly described by the term “mere.” Instead,
Christian baptism must be understood as representing a true and inner
reality–one that is brought about by the grace of God in a person’s life. When
we properly present baptism as it is presented in Scripture, we glorify God’s
grace and magnify His work of salvation in Jesus Christ.