Standard Passages that are used to Support

Baptismal Regeneration

                  Acts 2:38

           Mark 16:16

           John 3:5

          Acts 22:16

          Romans 6:2-4, Galatians 3:26, Colossians 2:11-12: Being Baptized into Christ  

          1 Peter 3:19-21

Acts 2:38

Repent, and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. . . . (KJV).

The folks that hold to baptismal regeneration have a firm position on the interpretation of Acts 2:38: Peter commands new converts to (a) repent and be baptized and (b) for the UPCI, be baptized only by way of the exact formula: “in the name of Jesus.”

Therefore, it is asserted that the remission or forgiveness of sins is accomplished only by water baptism (“in the name of Jesus” only, according to the UPCI) and, of course, repentance. However, only by disregarding the historical context and ignoring the grammar of the text, can the baptismal regenerationists hold to such a heterodox view. Furthermore, the doctrine of baptismal regeneration clearly controverts the entire theology of Luke (e.g., Acts 10:43; 16:30-31). Even so, UPCI writer David Bernard insists on the necessity of water baptism as he understands Acts 2:38:

We should remember that water baptism is administered because of our past life of sin; it is for the ‘remission of sins’ (Acts 2:38). Since the name of Jesus is the only saving name (Acts 4:12), it is logical that the name be used in baptism.[1]

Acts 2:38 is probably the most utilized passage that the baptismal regenerationists employ to support the notion that water baptism is a indispensable part of justification. 

In proper interpretation, grammar and context dictates theology, not the reverse, theology dictating grammar. This is a vital point in exegesis. Admittedly, there is diversity of opinion amongst Christian theologians in the interpretation of this text; a text, in candidness, that requires some exegetical homework. However, even though there are differences of opinion on the exact meaning of the passage, in no case is it offered that Acts 2:38 provides a basis for baptismal regeneration. Noted Greek grammarian J. R. Mantey offers one such acceptable interpretation. He argued that the preposition eis (“for”) could be causal, hence the passage could read: “And Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and be baptized—each one of you—at the name of Jesus Christ because of/for/unto the forgiveness of your sins.’” In other words, the preposition eis should be translated “because of,” or “in view of” not “in order to” or “for the purpose of” forgiveness of sins. Mantey believed that a salvation by grace would be violated if a causal eis were not evident in such passages as Acts 2:38.[2] This way of handling the text is also concurred by one of the most quoted New Testament Greek grammarians, A. T. Robertson.[3]

There is also another grammatical aspect to be considered. There is a shift from second person plural to third person singular and back to second person plural. Notice below:

1. The verb metanoēsate (“repent”) is second person plural and is in the active voice.

2. And baptisthētō (“be baptized”) is third person singular and is in the passive voice.

            3. The Greek pronoun humōn (“your”) is a second person plural.

Therefore, the grammatical connection is metanoēsate (“repent”) (second person, active plural) with humōn (“your”; second person, plural); thus, repent “for the remission of your sins.”

Moreover, the same wording “for the remission of your sins” is used in reference to John’s baptism (cf. Luke 3:3; Mark 1:4). John’s baptism did not save; it was merely a preparatory baptism of the coming Messiah and a call to repentance, as we will deal with below. Wallace suggests an additional view where baptism represents both the spiritual reality and the ritual is an acceptable view that works well in the scope of the context:

It is possible that to a first-century Jewish audience (as well as to Peter), the idea of baptism might incorporate both the spiritual reality and the physical symbol. In other words, when one spoke of baptism, he usually meant both ideas—the reality and the ritual. . . . Water baptism is not a cause of salvation, but a picture; and as such it serves both as a public acknowledgment (by those present) and a public confession (by the convert) that one has been Spirit –baptized.[4]

Notwithstanding the different pools of interpretation, which in fact do not contradict, but only enhance, all are exegetically acceptable. The baptismal regeneration position violates not only the theology in Acts (e.g., 10:43), but also the entire theology of the New Testament:

knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified (Gal. 2:16; cf. 3:1ff).

Mark 16:16

“He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved. . . .”

It is important to remember a basic hermeneutical principle, particularly when considering this specific text: it is an error in elementary principles of interpretation to base a doctrine on spurious New Testament readings. As is concurred by nearly every textual scholar, the ending of Mark (16:9-20) was an interpolation, which was not a part of the original manuscript tradition. There is substantial internal and external evidence that demonstrates that the “majority” ending was non-Markan.[5]

However, even if verse 16 is granted we cannot stop at the middle of the verse, as do most baptismal regenerationists. The full verse reads: “He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned” (emphasis added). Thus, condemnation rests on the one who does not believe and not the one who is not baptized. The verse simply does not support baptismal regeneration.

John 3:5

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the 

kingdom of God.”

            Importantly, it must be remembered that in the entire Gospel of John, Christian water baptism was never a prescriptive teaching nor was it even discussed. Only in narrative accounts do we find it (viz. John’s preparatory baptism) mentioned (cf. John 1:25-33; 3:22-26; and 4:1-2). Even more, not even the noun baptisma (“baptism”) appears in the gospel. To properly understand the passage we cannot abandon the context.

            We should also consider that there have been several interpretations (mainly five) of what the phrase “born of water” means. Therefore, each view will be explored on its own merit, and will be analyzed on the basis of its grammatical, contextual, and historical probability:

1. Christian water baptism

            It is highly improbable that Jesus was teaching Christian water baptism to Nicodemus; not to mention that nowhere in the context (or anywhere in the chap.) does Jesus explicitly teach or use the term “baptism.”

            When Jesus was dialoguing with Nicodemus, Christian water baptism (for new believers, as in Acts) was completely unheard of at that point. It was not until Acts at the inauguration of the church proper that Christian water baptism was instituted. The water baptism mentioned in the gospels was that of John’s. John’s baptism was for repentance and preparation for the coming Messiah (cf. 1:26). Hence, John’s baptism was not a baptism of the new Christian convert, or else the disciples in Acts 19:1-5 would not have had to be re-baptized. Robertson notes the doubtfulness of “water” here referring to water baptism:

Many theories exist. One view makes baptism, referred to by ex hudatos (coming up out of the water), essential to the birth of the Spirit, as the means of obtaining the new birth of the Sprit. If so, why is water mentioned only once in the three demands of Jesus (3, 5, 7)?[6]

            Clearly then, if Jesus was speaking of new convert Christian water baptism, Nicodemus would not have had a hint as to what He was saying—Christian water baptism was not yet instituted. I see this view most awkward, as well as anachronistic.

2. Physical birth

            Some have interpreted the “water” to mean physical birth (i.e., water of the womb). This based on Nicodemus’s response to Jesus in verses 3-4: “How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?” Also noted is the parallel between “water” and “Spirit” in verse 5 and “flesh” and “Spirit” in verse 6.

            But does this thought really flow with the following verses? Would Jesus have been so inexplicable and ambiguous concerning the water of the womb if that was what He was communicating? Hence this view, more probable than the first, but unlikely.

3. The washing of the Word of God

            Others have taken “water” here to refer to “the washing of water with the Word” (Eph. 5:26). As well, 1 Peter 1:23 says, “for you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God.” However attractive this view is, it lacks, I feel, substance. It reads far too much into the word “water,” sacrificing the plainness of the passage.

4. John the Baptist’s baptism

            A more plausible view is that Jesus was explaining to Nicodemus that he needed the repentance and preparatory baptism (viz. John’s), which Nicodemus would have been familiar with. For the Jews of the day had to repent and prepare for “the kingdom is at hand” (cf. Matt. 3:2). Subsequently, Jesus would baptize by means of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 3:11).[7]

5. “Water” is Synonymous with the

Regeneration of the Holy Spirit

            I see this view as the most probable. In this view, “water” (and “wind” in v. 8) is symbolic for the cleansing and regeneration by the Holy Spirit. This idea is clearly exampled in the Old Testament:

“Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh” (Ezek. 36:25-26).

            As a teacher of the Old Testament Law, Nicodemus would have been quite familiar with the cleansing and purification of the Spirit. Also, this concept was clearly in the Apostle Paul’s mind when he wrote,

He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior (Titus 3:5-6; emphasis added).

            Not to mention a grammatical point that could add merit to this interpretation. The last part of the passage (John 3:5) literally reads: “except anyone is born of water and [kai] Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of the God.”[8] As seen, in allowable contexts the Greek conjunction kai (“and”) could be translated as an ascensive conjunction “even,” which could explain the previous clause: “born of water.” Thus, it could be translated: “except anyone is born of water even [kai] Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom. . . .”

            So, in spite of the various views, we must bear in mind that we should come to the text without any prior theological commitments. All interpretations should be carefully examined in light of sound rules of hermeneutics; namely here—the priority of the explicit; that is, ambiguous passages should be interpreted by the unambiguous or explicit passages. Notwithstanding the different interpretations of John 3:5, which is anything but explicit, it cannot be teaching baptismal regeneration because clearly and unambiguously being justified before God is solely by faith/belief alone (works excluded): “He who believes has [echei][9] eternal life” (John 6:47; emphasis added; cf. 1 John 5:12).

Acts 22:16

Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.

From the English rendering, admittedly on the surface it looks as though water baptism washes away sins. However, the English here does not represent the Greek syntax at this point. First, in most English translations, there are two conjunctions (kai [“and”]), but not in the Greek, for there is only one conjunction: anastas baptisai kai apolousai tas hamartias sou, epikalesamenos to onoma autou (lit. “Rising up be baptized, and [kai] wash away the sins of thee invoking the name of Him”). Hence, one conjunction does not indicate two separate clauses being communicated here, but one.

Second, the two imperative verbs baptisei (“be baptized”) and apolousai (“wash away”) are in the middle voice.[10] Hence, grammatically a literal reading would be: “Rise, have yourself baptized and allow your sins to be washed away, invoking the name of Him.” The grammatical connection to “washing away your sins” then, is not being water baptized, but rather with the calling on or invoking the name of the Lord (cf. Acts 2:21 and Rom. 10:13).

Romans 6:2-4, Galatians 3:26, Colossians 2:11-12:  
Being Baptized into Christ

As dealt with, at the beginning of this chapter these passages above all speak of being baptized into Christ. And thus, the baptismal regenerationists use them to show that one must be water baptized in order to be “in Christ.” Yet, just as in 1 Corinthians 10:2, which says that all the Israelites were baptized into Moses and 12:13, which says that we were pantes (“all”) baptized into (“by means of”)[11] one Spirit. Again, to be baptized into something was uniting into or identifying with that something.

The baptismal regenerationists equivocate on the term “baptism” as if it only had one stern meaning in Scripture. The definition of words cannot be limited to one formal meaning, but rather the context must be considered. In other words, if I am writing about baseball and I mentioned that a “bat” struck someone; it cannot be assumed that I am speaking of the flying mammal. Thus, the immediate context determines the meaning of the word.

In most languages a word can have a variety of meanings; therefore, the context should always be considered first. To say then, that “baptism” or to be “baptized” always and only means water immersing is a hermeneutical error.

1 Peter 3:19-21

in which also He [Jesus] went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons were brought safely through the water. Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. . . . (emphasis added).

Only by exegetical neglect can one use this passage to support baptismal regeneration. The phrase “Corresponding to that” (v. 21) is from the Greek pronoun ho (ho kai [“which also”]) and its antecedent is “water” (not “ark”) back in verse 20. Hence, the floodwater was the judgment whereas the “ark” that delivered them was referring to salvation.

Peter is making the analogy that by being baptized into, or by Christ, that is, being unified or identified with Him dia (“through”) the resurrection; it would deliver one safely through the judgment water (flood). So the point is not missed, Peter makes clear that the “baptism” that he is speaking of is not the “removal of dirt [i.e., forgiveness or removal of sins] from the flesh,” as with literal water baptism, but rather an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection.

Back to the Top