Biblical & Theological Issues

by Craig Branch and Brandon Robbins –

There are numerous religious bodies which teach that one of the necessary requirements for salvation or justification is water baptism. The more well-known of these bodies are Roman Catholicism, United Pentecostalism, Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh-day Adventism, and the Churches of Christ (Campbellites). For all of these groups, with the exception of Roman Catholicism, the required mode of baptism is immersion. The key concept in these groups is the requirement, the necessity, of obedience to the biblical command to be baptized in order to actually appropriate salvation. This is closely connected with their belief that baptism is the actual cause of regeneration (the new birth). Thus, these groups espouse what is called baptismal regeneration.

However, according to the tenets of these groups, it is not baptism alone that appropriates salvation. It is the culmination of several steps that include believing in Jesus, repenting of sins, confession, and baptism. In this way, the truth of justification by faith alone in Christ alone is compromised and denied. But even then the requirements for salvation are not exhausted. Invariably there are numerous other commands that are required by the particular religious bodies for salvation. As you read this journal’s other articles on the Stone-Campbell-Scott Movement and Ellen G. White’s Seventh-day Adventism, you will see the requirements multiplied. In this article, however, our focus will be on examining their aberrant teachings on baptism.

The Restoration Movement and Baptism
The majority of Churches of Christ Christian Churches continue Alexander Campbell’s teaching in his systematic theological treatise, The Christian System: “If being born again, or born of water and the Spirit is necessary for admission, and if being born of water means immersion, as clearly proved by all witnesses [Scripture references], then remission of sins cannot, in this life, be constitutionally enjoyed previous to immersion.”1
John Castelien, representing the Churches of Christ position in Understanding Four Views on Baptism, writes,

It is the occasion when God incorporates them into Jesus Christ and instills His Holy Spirit in them. . . . [I]t marks the time when the individual appropriates for himself or herself the promises of God’s Word. . . . Anyone who believes in Jesus Christ, repents of his sins, professes Jesus as new Lord, and is immersed in Jesus’ name is thereby incorporated as a member into Jesus’ universal body.2

In the Seventh-day Adventist book Seventh-day Adventists Believe, we find the following statement of their fourteenth Fundamental Belief: “By baptism we…become His people and are received as members by His church. . . . It is by immersion in water and contingent on an affirmation of faith.” The exposition follows: “How Important Is Baptism?. . . Does salvation hinge on whether one is baptized?. . . [Christ] required baptism of those who wished to become a part of His church. . . . [T]he apostles proclaimed the necessity…the one baptized now puts on Christ and enters into the covenant relationship with Jesus.” 3

All of the religious bodies mentioned earlier use the following verses to build their case for the necessity of baptism for salvation: Mark 16:16, John 3:5, Acts 2:38, Acts 22: 16, Rom. 6:3-4, Gal. 3:27, Col. 2:12, Titus 3:5, 1 Pet. 3:19-21, and Jas. 2:24. These are the major texts used. Granted, one can construct isolated proof-texts and “cut and paste” those verses, and construct almost any doctrine one thereby wants to “prove.” But one must employ sound standards of hermeneutics (rules of Bible interpretation) to truly understand the meaning. Some of those standard principles are: (1) examining the Greek or Hebrew meaning of words; (2) examining the context of verses before and after; (3) examining the historical context; (4) interpreting Scripture by Scripture (factoring in all the passages dealing with that subject). As is mentioned in other articles elsewhere in this issue of Areopagus Journal these groups fail to apply these principles correctly.4

The Baptism That Saves
There are numerous “baptisms” taught in Scripture. There is a “baptism of fire” (Matt. 3:11), baptism “into Moses” (1 Cor. 10:2), baptism of the Holy Spirit (Acts 11:16), and baptism with water (Acts 10:47). The Greek word for baptism in these cases has the primary meaning of mersing, merging, or to bring into union with something. It is clear from Scripture that one is united to Christ, brought into a dynamic union with Him, through and in the Holy Spirit. This is what we call “being born again” or regenerated. 1 Corinthians 11:2:13 clearly states this idea when it says, “For by one Spirit we are all baptized into one Body…”

Water baptism and Spirit baptism are not simultaneous and the Scripture demonstrates that water baptism is distinct from Spirit baptism. This is the crucial and central truth to share with those who hold to the necessity of water baptism for salvation. In Acts 10, Peter was led by God to the Gentiles in fulfillment of the Lord’s instruction to take the gospel “to the remotest part of the earth” (Acts 1:8). He preached the content of the gospel to Cornelius (vv. 34-43) and when he came to the point of saying “everyone who believes in Him receives the forgiveness of sins,” the Scripture explicitly states that Cornelius and his household “received the Holy Spirit,” “the gift of the Holy Spirit”, and then after that, were baptized with water (vv. 44-47). It is important to note that Peter refers to their reception not as a unique exception to the rule, but as normative, “in the same way we did” (v. 47). Peter later refers to this event as the “baptism of the Holy Spirit,” and emphasizes the same sequence of events (baptism after believing) that Luke records in chapter 10 (11:15-17).

Peter also appealed to this event as a premium example of the grace by which we are all saved in contrast to the Judaizers who came to add obedience to commands as the way of salvation (Acts 15:7-11). Peter claimed that their hearts were cleansed by faith in the giving of the Holy Spirit. And again, he stresses that this reception or baptism of the Holy Spirit (before water baptism) is God’s universal way.

Some Misused Texts
1. Acts 2:38
Those arguing for the necessity of baptism for salvation understandably use this verse as a centerpiece argument. They point out the context—that in Acts 2:14-41 Peter is preaching a “sermon” to the Jews on who Jesus was, why He came, the significance of His resurrection, and what responsibility and consequences they were to incur for what they had done. The Jews were convicted and responded, “What must we do [to be saved]?” Peter answers, “Repent and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (v. 38). Their major focus of debate is on the word “for” with the Churches of Christ and others believing it must be interpreted to mean “in order to receive” forgiveness.

But this is not the necessary meaning of “for” here. The Greek word eis (for) has numerous shades of meaning. The preposition can mean “in order to” as the legalists seek, or it can mean “with references to,” “in regard to,” “concerning,” or even “because of.” Many respected Greek scholars make this clear.5 They point to numerous verses (e.g., Matt. 3:11, Acts 2:25; 2 Cor. 13:3) where eis means “with regard to,” or “with reference to,” and cannot mean “in order to.” Greek scholar A. T. Robertson summarized the issue well in his exegesis of Acts: 2:38. He wrote, “One will decide here according as he believes [a priori] that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not.”6 And when one applies the hermeneutical standard of Scripture interpreting Scripture, and examines all the passages dealing with this topic, then baptism cannot be any part of the cause of salvation.7

Another argument offered against baptismal efficacy for salvation is that the Greek grammar supports the reading “Repent. . .for the forgiveness of your sins; and let each of you be baptized.” This is because “repent” and “your sins” is in the second person plural, while “each of you” is in the second person singular.

All of this is consistent with uniform teaching of the Bible on salvation that the exercise of faith and repentance are a ceasing to do and a surrendering to Christ and His doing. Let us now turn to a number of other passages that are supposed to give support to the view that baptism is a requirement for salvation.

2. Mark 16:16
This verse reads: “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” The first thing to say about this text is that none of the earliest Greek manuscripts contain Mark 16:9-20; so most scholars agree that Mark 16:16 is probably not part of Scripture. But even so, does this passage teach that one must be baptized to be saved? Calvin Beisner makes the following case against such a conclusion:

While the first clause says that all who both believe and are baptized will be saved, it does not say that all who neither believe nor are baptized will not be saved. In other words, the clause does not exclude any group, while it does tell of a group of people who will be saved, namely, those who both believe and are baptized. But the second clause negates one group: those who do not believe will not be saved. There is no negation of the group of those who believe but are not baptized. Thus, while the verse as a whole does teach that belief is essential to salvation, it does not teach that baptism is. While this does not prove that baptism is not necessary for salvation, it does mean that this verse cannot be used to prove that baptism is necessary for salvation. 8

So should we still hold on to this belief that baptism is necessary for salvation? Let us look at another passage that is supposed to support this view.

3. John 3:5
Here we read: “Jesus answered, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’” There are a number of difficulties in using this reference as a proof text for the necessity of baptism in the salvation process. For one thing, this text comes early in the Gospels prior to the institution of Christian baptism and the application of being baptized into the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Would Nicodemus (to whom Jesus is speaking) have understood such a reference in his historical context? No. Some Christians argue that Jesus was referring to the natural birth here as a “water” birth, affirming Nicodemus’ reference to natural birth, but then adding the necessity of being born again spiritually(regeneration). This is plausible but there is yet a still better explanation.

The immediate context is that John the Baptist was calling the Jews into repentance and was baptizing those who were repentant with the sign of water baptism. The Jews sent their priests and Levites to question John (John 1:19-28). Jesus then came to John and the focus shifted to Him as it was proclaimed that He is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world, to whom the water bore witness (John 1: 29-31). Then the Pharisee Nicodemus came and Jesus proclaimed to him that one must be born again to enter the kingdom of God (John 3:1-3). Nicodemus questioned how can one be born physically and then repeat that natural birth. Jesus answered that John’s water baptism “for repentance” was necessary for the Jews of his day (like Nicodemus), but to be meaningful it must be accompanied by the spiritual reality of the Spirit’s baptism. As Hendriksen puts it, “Being baptized with water is not sufficient.”

Another plausible explanation connects this text to the Old Testament promise of the Spirit who would be “poured out” like water (see Isa. 32:15, Ezek. 36:25-27). On this view, the reference to “water and Spirit” in John 3:5 is simply a poetic way of speaking about the Holy Spirit’s work of regeneration.

4. Romans 6:3-4
“Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.” Because the passage states that all who have been baptized into Christ have been buried and raised with Him into newness of life, therefore baptism is that point where we procure salvation. And furthermore, immersion best symbolizes being “buried with Him through baptism,” and being “raised” (resurrection).

Our response to this is that these verses taken in context are a symbolic referral to our identification with Christ. This is seen in the use the term “likeness” of His death and resurrection (v. 5). Paul is using symbolic language in this context. For example, are we literally crucified with Christ” (v. 6), “reckoned or considered ourselves dead to sin” (v. 11)? These are all symbols which point to a reality. And again, the fact from Scripture is that there is “one baptism” (Eph. 4:5), and that essential baptism is the union or baptism of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:13). This distinctly occurs separate from water baptism (Acts 10:44-47, 11:15-17), which symbolizes the cleansing union with Christ.

This focus on union with Christ through the Spirit and illustrated by baptism is common in the letters of the apostle Paul. Consider Galatians 3:27: “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” This passage points to our spiritual union with Christ not the nature of baptism. Baptism is a symbol of this union. Robert Reymond states, “I believe that Paul has in mind by his statement here Christ’s baptismal work of baptizing the elect by His Spirit, by which work they are brought into union with him trough faith, their union with him being described here metaphorically as their ‘putting on Christ’ in the sense that one would enrobe oneself in a garment.’”9 Baptism is the outward sign of putting on Christ and being identified with the covenant community, not the means by which this is done.

5. Titus 3:5
Baptismal regeneration proponents attempt to say that this passage puts regeneration (“renewing by the Holy Spirit”) in conjunction with baptism (“washing”). But this is definitely reading something into the text that is not there. The washing of regeneration is elsewhere specifically shown to be the cleansing of the evil conscience accomplished by the sprinkling of the blood of Christ on the heart (Heb. 10:22). And if water baptism is a command to be obeyed, it would be a “work of righteousness” done in order to procure righteousness, which is not the basis of redemption.

6. 1 Peter 3:19-21
Along with Acts 2:3, this passage is the one used most by believers in baptismal regeneration. Of course the phrase focused on is “corresponding to that, baptism now saves you.” They argue that the phrase “corresponding to that” is referring to the previous verse where Noah and his family “were brought safely through the water.” It appears to be a strong argument for baptismal salvation, until one takes a closer look. First of all, the water of the flood did not save anyone. It destroyed everyone on the earth except Noah and his family. The ark is what saved them. Peter uses the word antitype (corresponding to) which means corresponding to a form or figure. This text then utilizes what is called typology. The type is the ark or vehicle delivering Noah’s family through the water of destruction, and its antitype is baptism which is a symbol or representation of the sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus Christ. “Baptism,” being an antitype, means a copy of something that has a reality (ark and Christ). Peter at once makes this point in the next verse as he says that it is not the visible outward washing of water that saves, but repentance and faith in the work of Christ (v. 21b). Thus verse 21 technically should read “which (baptism) being an antitype (symbol) of Christ’s death and resurrection now saves us.”

7. Colossians 2:12
This text reads: “Having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.” Does this verse teach that water baptism signifies the operation of saving grace or does it convey saving grace? In the immediate context, Paul seems to be pointing out that circumcision and baptism point to the same inner working of the Spirit. Baptism is the new sign of the covenant that points to the union we have in the outpouring of the Spirit on the covenant people. Paul refers to both baptism and circumcision in a symbolic way showing what these covenant signs point to, not what they accomplish. The concept of baptism pointing to union with Christ is also seen in Galatians 3:27: “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” Salvation comes through being united to Christ by faith. Baptism is a sign and symbol of what the Spirit does in bring God’s people into fellowship with himself.

8. Acts 22:16
This final text we will cover states: “And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.” He the issues is simply one of understanding Greek grammar. In this verse the “wash away your sins” is connected to the “calling.” This verse speaks of a historical setting in which Paul believed and was told he should be baptized. It is the calling on the name of the Lord that washes away sins not the baptism.

We have to this point worked through a number of verses that are used to support the idea of baptismal regeneration. Do these verses make the case? Are there reasons to side with the idea that the point of these verses is more about the baptism of the Holy Spirit and union with Christ and not water baptism at all?

Saved By Union With Christ Not By Water Baptism
Baptism is a sign and seal of the covenant of grace and as such does point to the reality of the Holy Spirit being poured out in the hearts of God’s people. But it is not the means by which this reality is brought about. Ephesians 2:8-9 clearly state, “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.” How is it that we are supposed to know someone is Christ’s disciple? What are the true means of salvation? Is it because they have been baptized? Or is it because they exercise the fruit of the Spirit? Is it because they have been dunked into a bath of water or because they show love for one another? If it is the case that baptism is a means necessary for salvation, then we should expect to find numerous instances in Scripture of people looking to their baptism as a surety of salvation. Do we have that in Scripture? No. Scripture over and over points us to the finished work of Christ and reminds us that the necessary means of receiving the benefits of Christ’s work is faith alone.

In conclusion and in support of this position, I would ask one to take a fresh reading of Paul’s arguments in Galatians and Romans. In both of these letters, Paul brings up the issue of saving faith and what is required to have it. He brings his readers back to Abraham and points out that he was declared righteous prior to his receiving the old covenant sign of circumcision. Why does he do this? Why does Paul go out of his way to show that circumcision was not required for salvation for the people of God in the Old Testament? Paul shows that it was the faith of Abraham that was necessary. Does Paul anywhere point to the idea that although circumcision was not required in the Old Testament, baptism is now required? If circumcision is no longer a requirement (and never was) but baptism is, then why does Paul not come out and say so? The reason he does not is because salvation comes to those who simply exercise faith.

Craig Branch is the Director of the Apologetics Resource Center, Birmingham, Alabama. Brandon Robbins is a staff apologist with the Apologetics Resource Center and an associate editor of Areopagus Journal.

NOTES
1 Douglas Foster, “Churches of Christ and Baptism: an Historical and Theological Overview,” Restoration Quarterly 43:2 ( 2000).
2 John H. Armstrong, ed. Understanding Four Views on Baptism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007), 130,131,141.
3 General Conference Ministerial Association, Seventh-day Adventists Believe: A Biblical Exposition of 27 Fundamental Doctrines (Hagerstown MD: Review and Herald Publishers, 1988), 181, 182, 185, 187.
4 For a good introduction to the science of biblical interpretation, we encourage the reader to procure our the issue of Areopagus Journal with the theme “Biblical Interpretation” (Vol. 6, No. 1 [Jan-Feb 2006]).
5 See J.H. Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987), 184; Dana and Martey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (New York: MacMillan, 1962), 114; Liddell and Scott, An Intermediate Greek- English Lexicon (Oxford University, 1945), 231.
6 See A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures of the New Testament, Vol. 3 (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1942), 35.
7 See Craig Branch’s “Veritas” column in this issue of Areopagus Journal for a brief defense of the doctrine of justification by faith alone.
8 E. Calvin Beisner, Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation? A Critical Analysis of the Doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration” (article accessed at http://www.rickross.com/reference/icc/ICC122.html).
9 Robert Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998), 927.

(First published in Areopagus Journal Vol. 9 No. 5  The Restoration Movement)