Before proceeding any further with our consideration of the important biblical doctrine of baptism, let’s deal with the elephant in the room; namely, the false doctrine of baptismal regeneration.
Many churches teach and many professed Christians believe that baptism is necessary for salvation. Roman Catholics even go as far as to teach that infant baptism cancels the debt of original sin. Yet, infant baptism is not mentioned in all of Scripture and the Scripture plainly refutes the erroneous notion of baptismal regeneration. For instance, consider the following:
(1) While the New Testament contains around 150 references to the truth that salvation is appropriated by faith alone, direct references to water baptism are relatively few.
(2) Jesus promised the unbaptized thief on the cross, “Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.” (Luke 23:43)
(3) According to the Bible, we are purchased, redeemed, forgiven, justified, brought near to God, reconciled to God, purged, cleansed, washed, sanctified and enabled to overcome the devil by the blood of Christ (Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 1:18- 19; Ephesians 1:7; Romans 3:25; 5:9; Ephesians 2:13; Colossians 1:20; Hebrews 9:14; 1 John 1:7; Revelation 1:5; Hebrews 13:12; Revelation 12:11).
Advocates of baptismal regeneration either substitute the waters of baptism for the blood of Christ or add them as a supplement to Christ’s blood. Either way, they make the blood of Christ out to be insufficient for our salvation.
(4) Salvation is a miracle of God, only made possible by election and divine intervention (Mark 10:26-28; John 15:16; Romans 9:11; Ephesians 1:4-6; 1 Thessalonians 1:4; 2 Peter 1:10). Consequently, all human boasting is excluded, since salvation is a work of God that has absolutely nothing to do with any works of our own (Romans 3:26-28; Ephesians 2:8-9; Galatians 6:14).
If baptism saves us, then, the Scripture is wrong. We are saved by a work of our own and have every right to brag about our own salvation, a salvation obtained by our observance of a church ordinance—baptism.
(5) If baptism is necessary for salvation, then, Jesus was wrong when He cried out from the cross, “It is finished” (John 19:30). The necessary work for our salvation was not completed by Christ’s atonement, but awaits the addition of our baptism.
(6) If water baptism is necessary for salvation, then, it is a curious thing that Christ, the Savior of the world, never personally baptized anyone in water (John 4:1-2). No less curious is the fact that the Apostle Paul thanked God that he personally baptized very few of the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 1:14-16).
(7) In Acts Chapter 10, we are told how the Gentiles believed, were saved and received the Holy Spirit (v. 44). Afterward, they were baptized (vs. 47-48). Obviously, this sequence of events serves as a refutation of baptismal regeneration.
Contrary to the opinion of many within the contemporary church, the teaching of baptismal regeneration is no minor disagreement within Christendom. It is a major breach of sound doctrine. It not only does despite to the sovereignty of God and the finished work of Christ, but it also perverts the Gospel, not to mention the real purpose and meaning of baptism itself.
When it comes to the false doctrine of baptismal regeneration, the most popular proof-text employed by its proponents is probably Acts 2:38—“Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” At first glance, this verse may appear to suggest some scriptural substantiation for this erroneous doctrine. A closer look, however, reveals that such is not the case.
The New Testament’s emphasis on the importance of baptism for the saved is often misinterpreted as the imperativeness of
baptism for salvation. Furthermore, the fact that the New Testament takes for granted the baptism of the saved often leads to a misunderstanding of baptism as an integral part of salvation.
To the Apostle Peter, baptism was a given for all who have trusted Christ for “the remission of sins” and the receiving “of the Holy Spirit.” Thus, he included baptism as part of his invitation to convicted sinners to come to the Savior on the Day of Pentecost. Unfortunately, many misinterpret Peter’s inclusion of baptism as part of the salvation process rather than what it actually is; namely, proof of salvation offered afterward by the new convert in the form of a public profession.
If I was to encourage you to obtain financial freedom from your mortgagee via a note burning, you would understand that paying off your mortgage is the means by which your financial freedom is obtained. A note burning is held after the fact as a mere symbol of what has transpired. Although it is associated with the paying off of your loan, it is not the means by which it is accomplished. Likewise, Peter associated baptism with salvation, but in no way intended for it to be misunderstood as the means by which salvation is obtained. Baptism, like a note burning, is held after the fact as a mere symbol of what has transpired.
If Peter was preaching the necessity of baptism for salvation in Acts 2:38, then, it is strange to me that he doesn’t even bother to mention baptism in his other sermons (Acts 3:12-26; 5:29-32; 10:34-43). In addition to this, the Scripture clearly states that all who believed Peter’s preaching of the Gospel in Cornelius’ house received the Holy Spirit before they were baptized (Acts 10:44-48). To me, these are insurmountable hurdles to be hopped by all who herald the heretical doctrine of baptismal regeneration.
According to A. T. Robertson, the Greek “eis” translated “for” in Acts 2:38 means “on the basis or grounds of.” Thus, Edgar Wuest, in his Expanded Translation of the New Testament, translates the verse as a call for baptism “upon the ground of [one’s] confession” of faith in the work and “glorious Person” of Jesus Christ. Wuest goes on in his Expanded Translation to add that one’s “baptismal testimony” is to be done “in relation to the fact that your sins have been put away” and “the gratuitous gift of the Holy Spirit” received.
It appears to me that Wuest’s translation is an accurate account of the Apostle Peter’s intent. It also puts this seemingly contradictory verse in perfect accordance with the rest of Scripture. Armed with this understanding of the Greek text, as well as with an understanding of the difference between the New Testament’s emphasis on baptism’s importance and the modern-day misinterpretation of it as supportive-evidence for an erroneous doctrine, you and I should be able to easily dispense with the few and flimsy proof- texts proffered by proponents of baptismal regeneration. As Charles Haddon Spurgeon attested: “Facts all show that whatever good there may be in baptism, it certainly does not make a man a member of Christ, a child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven, or else many thieves, whoremongers, drunkards, fornicators, and murderers are members of Christ, the family of God, and inheritors of the kingdom of heaven. Facts, brethren, are dead against this popish doctrine; and facts are stubborn things.”